During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Respondeat Superior

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Moreno v. Visser Ranch

by Jan T. Chilton |

The going-and-coming rule might not bar a claim against at-fault driver’s employer; though the driver was on a personal mission, the employer allegedly required him to drive a company truck at all times. Read More

J.W. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.

by Jan T. Chilton |

Plaintiff may succeed on a negligent hiring and supervision theory by alleging that an employer’s negligent hiring of employee put him in a position to commit wrongful acts outside the scope of his employment which he would not otherwise have been able to commit, even if the harm was not committed in the course and scope of employment. Read More

Newland v. County of Los Angeles

by Jan T. Chilton |

The required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule did not apply to a public defender’s drive home from work on a day he did not need the car for work, so his employer, the county, was not liable for the accident on the drive home. Read More

Lynn v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc.

The going-and-coming exception to respondeat superior absolved defendant from liability for injuries from car crash caused by employee who was offered free bus transportation to job site but elected to drive, and who was not on the clock during the car journey.  Read More

Secci v. United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc.

In determining whether the defendant exercised sufficient control to make the tortfeasor the defendant’s agent for purposes of respondeat superior, the jury may properly consider the degree of control which public regulations require the defendant to exercise over the tortfeasor.  Read More

Markow v. Rosner

A hospital could not be held liable for a doctor’s malpractice on a respondeat superior theory when the hospital’s conditions of admission, which the patient signed many times in non-emergency situations, clearly disclosed that all doctors who treated patients at the hospital acted as independent contractors.  Read More