Under respondeat superior and BPC §7583.39, a licensed PPO (private patrol operator) is generally liable for its employee guard's torts committed:
Explanation
Respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the course and scope of employment. The doctrine applies even where the specific act was negligent or wrongful, so long as the employee was advancing employer business and the act was not a 'substantial deviation' (frolic). BPC §7583.39 reinforces this by requiring PPOs to maintain a $1,000,000 commercial general liability insurance policy, recognizing that the PPO bears financial responsibility for guard misconduct. Express direction (a) is not required; conduct outside scope (b) is the exception, not the rule; and the employer is virtually always a defendant (d).
Law Reference: Cal. Business & Professions Code §7583.39; Restatement (Second) of Agency §219Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- Penal Code §242 defines battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Which of the following best describes the standard for security guards?
- Penal Code §240 defines assault as an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on another person. For a guard, which scenario most clearly meets all assault elements?
- A security guard observes a person who has been previously warned, in writing, not to return to a posted business property. The person re-enters the premises. Under PC §602(o) and related subdivisions, the guard's legal posture is:
- A PPO hires a guard without conducting the BSIS-mandated background check. The guard later commits an assault against a patron. Beyond respondeat superior, the PPO may face liability under which independent theory?
- A patron sues a guard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (federal civil rights statute) alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. The threshold issue for most private-security cases is:
- California's Bane Act (Civil Code §52.1) differs from federal §1983 in that the Bane Act:
Last reviewed: · editorial process