![]() ![]() Not surprisingly, Kinsel and Meraz did not report that they had committed an unjustified or outrageous attack on Cruz. Kinsel's report mentioned a "battery" but did not say who battered whom, nor did it identify Cruz or Meraz. ![]() He offered evidence that Kinsel and Meraz prepared reports of the incident, as required by company policy that HomeBase's loss prevention director had in the past commended Kinsel for similar reports, evidencing that the director sometimes read the reports and that Kinsel told the district supervisor and the store's general manager about the incident with Cruz. Meraz and Kinsel denied striking Cruz or calling him names.Ĭruz's claimed damages included $9,000 in attorneys fees defending against the criminal charges, as well as general damages for humiliation and the like.Ĭruz sought to prove that HomeBase ratified Kinsel's and Meraz's misconduct by retaining them as employees despite knowledge or reason to know of their mistreatment of Cruz. Kinsel testified that Cruz knocked off his glasses. Meraz testified that Cruz refused, despite Meraz's request, to show his receipt, and struck him. Cruz was subsequently tried on two counts of misdemeanor battery, but acquitted after 10 minutes of jury deliberation. When a police officer arrived, Cruz showed his receipt Cruz nonetheless was arrested, taken to the police station, stripped, searched, booked, and held until his wife posted bail. Meraz and Kinsel detained Cruz, handcuffed him, kicked him, pushed him into a bench and a wall, spilled his wallet and its contents on the floor, and called him derogatory names. Cruz offered evidence that HomeBase's Meraz accused Cruz of stealing a sheet of plywood, though Cruz had a receipt and offered to display it. Cruz sought punitive as well as compensatory damages. Respondent Victor Cruz sued appellant HomeBase, its security guard appellant Jose Meraz, and Meraz's supervisor, appellant John Kinsel, for battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. A "managing agent" is an employee with authority to establish corporate policy, that is, the broad principles and rules of general application which govern corporate conduct. A corporation is not deemed to ratify misconduct, and thus become liable for punitive damages, unless its officer, director, or managing agent actually knew about the misconduct and its malicious character. Where a jury hearing a store patron's claims for battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution found for the patron on the battery claim, but hung on the others, it was proper thereafter to try only the false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims to a second jury, with appropriate admonitions about the prior battery verdict. Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, Rita Gunasekaran Manes & Watson and Hugh R. ![]() Freedman Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Kent L. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. HOMEBASE et al., Defendants and Appellants. VICTOR CRUZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |