Yalung v. State (Dec. 21, 2023, F084367) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2023 WL 8821363]
Sara Spagnolini worked as an In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) provider running errands for an IHSS recipient. She ran a stop sign and crashed into Hanah Yalung’s vehicle, killing one of Yalung’s children and seriously injuring Yalung and four other children. Yalung sued the State of California, alleging it was vicariously liable for Spagnolini’s negligence, either as her employer or as a joint employer with the IHSS recipient because it paid her salary. The trial court sustained the State’s demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal, ruling that the IHSS statutes did not make the State an employer or joint employer of IHSS providers. Yalung appealed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the IHSS statutes are incompatible with vicarious liability. The court explained that, under the IHSS statutory scheme, the County administering a local IHSS program on the State’s behalf is considered an employer of providers “for some, but not all, purposes.” But the statutes do not set similar employment parameters for the State. To the contrary, the State’s IHSS role does not satisfy the special employment criteria because the statutory scheme does not entitle the State to supervise the details of IHSS providers’ work. The providers perform their work under the recipient’s supervision and direction; and the State does not supply the instrumentalities, tools, or place of work. The State must “ ‘ “perform or ensure the performance of all rights, duties, and obligations” that otherwise would be the legal responsibility “of the recipient.” ’ ” But that requirement does not create an employment relationship with the provider, the court held; it merely requires the State to act as the IHSS recipient’s agent in performing duties owed to the recipient. Accordingly, there was no basis for holding the State vicariously responsible for Spagnolini’s negligence while running an errand for an IHSS recipient.
