Question

What is the Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion of the following case?

Garcia was an employee of Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., which operated an orchard, and one of Garcia's duties was to drive a tractor through the orchard while pulling machinery behind. On one occasion, Garcia invited his nephew Perez to accompany him on the job as he drove the tractor through the orchard. Perez had to sit on the toolbox, because there was only one seat on the tractor. Perez was knocked off by a tree branch and was severely injured when the tractor machinery ran over his leg. Perez sued Van Groningen & Sons under the theory of respondeat superior. Van Groningen testified that the company forbade anyone but the driver to ride on the tractor because of the danger and that Garcia had personally been advised of this rule. Discuss what chance Perez has of recovering under the doctrine of respondeat superior. (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., 41 Cal. 3d 962, 719 P.2d 676, 227 Cal.Retr. 106 (1986)]

Answer 1

Issue: Garcia was an employee of Van Gronigen & Sons, Inc., which operated an ordchard, and one of Garcia’s duties was to drive a tractor through the orchard while pulling machinery behind the tractor. On one occasion, Garcia invited his nephew Perex to accompany him on the job as he drove the tractor through the orchard. Perez had to sit on the toolbox because there was only one seat on the tractor which was occupied by Garcia. Perex was knocked off by a tree branch and was severely injured when the tractor machinery ran over his leg. Perez sued Van Groningen & Sons un the theory of respondent superior. Van Groningen testified that the company forbade anyone but the driver to ride on the tractor because of the danger and that Garcia had personally been advised of this rule.

Rule: Theory of Respondeat Superior

Application: This rule states that the employer is always liable for punitive dames awarded against the employee if the wrong committed occurred within the scope of the employee’s employment. Garcia was performing his job duties when Perez was injured hence in the scope of his employment. It is also stated within this rule when an employee disobeys the instructions of an employer, the fact of disobedience alone does not insulate the employer from liability.

Conclusion: Perez has a great chance of recovering financially under the doctrine of respondent superior. Garcia was working under the scope of his employment when the accident involving Perez happened and caused him to be severely injured. Even though the Garcia was advised of the rule of no passengers on the equipment and disobeyed the rule, the fact of disobedience alone does not insulate the employer from liability. Perez was on Van Gronigen & Sons’ property and on the equipment owned by Van Gronigen & Sons. The company will be held liability for the actions of Garcia.