Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?
Case Name Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services
Date 01/29/2009
Note Exclusive remedy does not apply to an employer that failed to protect a supervisor from an off-premises assault by a workplace bully.
Citation B196126
WCC Citation WCC 34862009 CA
[U] Duffy v. Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. , No. B196126 (Cal. App. Dist. 2 01/29/2009) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE No. B196126 January 29, 2009 EUGENE DUFFY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. TECHNICOLOR ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC. Loeb & Loeb, Scott M. Lidman; Dreier Stein & Kahan, Fred B. Griffin; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Timothy T. Coates and Lillie Hsu for Defendant and Appellant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8. 1115. INTRODUCTION Defendant Technicolor Entertainment Services, Inc. (Technicolor) appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) as to causes of action for negligent retention and supervision and for assault brought by plaintiff Eugene Duffy and from the subsequently entered judgment for Duffy. After the trial as to liability, the jury found by special verdict that Duffy's injury was not caused or contributed to by events which arose out of or occurred within the course and scope of his employment with Technicolor; that Technicolor negligently retained and/or supervised Streng; that Technicolor's negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to Duffy; that Streng's conduct occurred after the conduct of Technicolor; that a reasonable person would not consider Streng's conduct as a highly unusual or an extraordinary response to the situation; that Streng committed one or more acts of willful physical aggression before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004; that Duffy had reasonable fear of bodily harm caused by Streng's conduct; that Duffy did not consent to Streng's conduct; that Technicolor later learned of Streng's conduct toward Duffy which occurred before Duffy left work on August 18, 2004; and that after learning of Streng's conduct directed at Duffy and which occurred before Duffy left work at Technicolor on August 18, 2004, Technicolor ratified Streng's conduct. Duffy then said that as he walked away, Streng told Duffy he had better be careful because Streng knew where Duffy lived.

Download full case here.