Can a third party be held liable for tortfeasance under section 3856 and section 3860 of the California Civil Code?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from Finney v. Manpower, Inc., 123 Cal.App.3d 1066, 177 Cal.Rptr. 74 (Cal. App. 1981):

Sections 3856 and 3860 make it possible for a third party to be held liable "for all the wrong his tortfeasance brought about" (Smith v. County of Los Angeles, 276 Cal.App.2d 156, 162, 81 Cal.Rptr. 120), regardless of whether it is the employee or employer who brings suit. To the extent the damages an employee recovers from a third party duplicate the benefits which the employee has already received from the employer, the employee's recovery provides a fund from which the employer may draw. (See 3856, subds. (b) and (c).) Taken together with the notice, intervention, and consolidation procedures set out in section 3853, these statutes attempt to insure that "(i)n either case, single or joint plaintiffs, there results but the one total action, and the defendant is put to his defense but once with the totality of recovery for his tortfeasance in issue." (Id., at p. 164, 81 Cal.Rptr. 120 (italics in original).)

Other Questions


Does Section 1054(1) of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure, section 1054 et. seq. and section 854 of the Criminal Code, allow defense counsel to conduct their investigation and prepare for trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the facial constitutionality of the section 17556 (d) of California Government Code 17556, subdivision (d), section 726 of the California Tax Code, providing that a local authority has authority to levy fees on behalf of a third party? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant be found to have committed a single physical act for purposes of section 654 of the California Criminal Code, Section 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 422 of the Criminal Code for carjacking? (California, United States of America)
What is the test to determine whether a corporate officer, director, and stockholder or employee is liable to a third party for breach of section 354 of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 139 of the California Civil Code, section 139 2 of the S.C. Code of Civil Procedure? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will the California Civil Code section 1714 of the Civil Code apply to an individual who has been denied a right to claim damages under the Civil Procedure Act? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for Section 654 of the California Criminal Code when a defendant is found guilty of a breach of section 654 or section 744 of the Code of Civil Procedure? (California, United States of America)
What is the effect of section 1714 of the Civil Code 2 (b) and (c) of the California Civil Code, and what are the implications of that section? (California, United States of America)
Does section 31 of the California Code of Civil Procedure allow a party to be held liable for a crime committed by a party that is not a principal? (California, United States of America)
Does Section 2924 of the California Civil Code, section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, grant privileged communications to a plaintiff in a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.