Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
2920 REVIEW DENIED Although a security guard probably would not have committed a rape but for his employment, which provided him with a marked patrol car, uniform, and gun, the mere fact that this gave him an opportunity to abuse the trappings of his profession does not render the employer vicariously liable for the rape.CitationMARIA D v WESTEC (Security Guard Rape) 85 CA4 125 [See: Mary M v City 54 C3 202; Farmers v County 11 C4 992, T/AT 1/96; Lisa M v Henry Mayo 12 C4 291, T/AT 1/96] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||