Lobo v. Tamco CA4/2
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 515
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Lobo I reversed Tamco's summary judgment and remanded for trial on Del Rosario's vicarious liability.
- Deputy Lobo was killed on October 11, 2005 when Del Rosario, leaving Tamco's premises, collided with motorcycles.
- Jennifer and Madison Lobo filed a wrongful death action; Kiley and Kadie Lobo filed a separate action; cases were consolidated.
- Tamco moved for summary judgment arguing Del Rosario was not acting within the course and scope; trial court granted.
- On remand, the jury found Del Rosario was not acting within the course and scope; Tamco prevailed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence supporting the verdict on course and scope? | Lobo contends evidence shows Del Rosario acted within scope. | Tamco argues evidence supports non-coverage and the verdict is proper. | Yes; substantial evidence supports the verdict. |
| Was the court's refusal to give a benefit definition instruction prejudicial? | Lobo asserts the term 'benefit' needed definition for clarity. | Tamco asserts no error; definition unnecessary. | No prejudice; no definition required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (Cal. 1970) (going-and-coming exception; incidental employer benefit)
- Lobo v. Tamco (Lobo I), 182 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (reversed summary judgment; set framework for benefit analysis)
- Bickel v. City of Piedmont, 16 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 1997) (substantial evidence standard for appellate review)
- Dell’Oca v. Bank of New York Trust Co., N.A., 159 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. App. 2008) (upholding denial of JNOV where substantial evidence exists)
- Sonic Mfg. Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc., 196 Cal.App.4th 456 (Cal. App. 2011) (standard for affirming defense verdict when substantial evidence supports it)