Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

O'Connor v. McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc.

California Court of Appeal
269 Cal. Rptr. 101 (1990)


Facts

Around 6:30 a.m. one morning, Martin O’Connor (plaintiff) was seriously injured when a vehicle driven by Evans, an employee of McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc. (McDonald’s) (defendant), collided with O’Connor’s motorcycle. From 8:00 p.m. until approximately midnight the night before, Evans, an aspiring manager, and several other McDonald’s employees engaged in a special cleaning project to prepare the restaurant for the “spring-blitz” competition. Evans and the other employees worked without pay to clean the restaurant at McDonald’s request. After completing the cleaning, Evans and four co-workers went to the home of an employee, Duffer, to socialize and to talk about their work and employee-manager relations. Around 6:30 a.m. the following morning, Evans left Duffer’s home and crashed into O’Connor. O’Connor filed a negligence suit against McDonald’s and McDonald’s Corporation (together McDonald’s) on the theory of respondeat superior and seeking damages for personal injuries including the loss of his left leg below his knee. O’Connor claimed Evans was on a “special errand” for McDonald’s at the time of the accident. The trial court disagreed and granted McDonald’s motion for summary judgment. O’Connor appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kremer, P.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.