> >
Case Name | Brassinga v. City of Mountain View | |
---|---|---|
Date | 08/20/1998 | |
Note | Good discussion of general employer vs. special employer, with cites. | |
Citation | 66 Cal.App.4th 195, 63 CCC 987 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 4181998 CA |
Acton and another Mountain View officer were the range masters who inspected the weapons of the Mountain View officers. Plaintiffs assert that the evidence established as a matter of law that (1) Brassinga was acting as a 'volunteer,' (2) even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View, Mountain View would still be liable under Marsh and (3) Brassinga was not a special employee of Mountain View. Plaintiffs assert that this principle is applicable here to permit Brassinga to sue Acton's general employer, Mountain View, even if Brassinga was a special employee of Mountain View. Here, if Mountain View was Brassinga's special employer, the exclusive remedy provisions would necessarily bar a tort action by Brassinga against Mountain View. However, Mountain View did have the power to remove Brassinga from his role playing duties for Mountain View.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.