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

269 Cal. Rptr. 101 (1990)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
O
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

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

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

Play video

Facts

Evans (defendant) worked for McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc. (McDonald’s) (defendant). From 8:00 p.m. until approximately midnight, Evans and other employees engaged in a special cleaning project to prepare the restaurant for a competition. They cleaned without pay at the request of McDonald’s. Evans, an aspiring manager, knew such voluntary efforts were key to advancement. After finishing, Evans and the others relocated to the home of one employee, Duffer, to socialize and talk business. Most of their discussion focused on employee-manager relations and the remaining tasks for the competition. Around 6:30 a.m., Evans left to drive home. On the way, Evans collided with motorcyclist Martin O’Connor (plaintiff), who was seriously injured. O’Connor sued Evans and McDonald’s for negligence, arguing that McDonald’s was liable on a respondeat superior theory because Evans was acting within the scope of employment. McDonald’s agreed that the cleaning project constituted a special errand for McDonald’s. However, McDonald’s argued that the stop at Duffer’s house constituted a complete departure from the special errand, negating the liability of McDonald’s. The superior court granted summary judgment in McDonald’s favor. O’Connor appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kremer, C.J.)

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 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Torts

Key Terms

Related Videos