J.L. v. Children's Institute, Inc.
Filed August 4, 2009
Cite as 2009 SOS 5509

No Vicarious Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor

Children‘s Institute, Inc. (CCI) was a nonprofit corporation that provides licensed family child care services to qualified families. It had acquired a master contract with the State of California to give child care services through its own licensed day care facilities located in four areas in Los Angeles County.

About 45 licensed family day care homes were contracted by CCI to which qualified families may be referred. CCI entered into annual contracts with these day care homes. These family day care homes must acquire license from the Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing (CCL).

Meanwhile, CCL licensed Yolanda Yglesias (Yglesias) to give home day care for children up to 6 years old. It was CCI which furnished Yglesias with training and education to enable it to apply for license. CCI and Yglesias executed a contract captioned as “Independent Contractor Agreement”.

Under the agreement, Yglesias was not to be considered an agent or employee of CCI. It was also agreed upon that neither party was to make any representation tending to create an apparent agency relationship. All children in Yglesias’ care were referred by CCI although the agreement did not limit referrals from the latter.

D.L. received day care services on her son J.L. from Yglesias. Unfortunately, J.L. was raped and sodomized by E.Y., Yslesias’ grandson. Consequently, Yglesias surrendered her licensed and closed the facility.

J.L. filed a damage suit against CCI and Yglesias for being negligent.

CCI moved for summary judgment claiming that it was not vicariously liable for the acts of Yglesias. J.L. opposed the motion. Trial court granted the motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, J.L. contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a triable fact remained as to whether CCI may be directly liable due to its special relationship with J.L.

The California Appeal Court, in affirming the trial court’s decision, ruled that CCI owed no duty to J.L. to protect him against an unforeseeable criminal assault at the day care home.

CCI was not vicariously liable for any possible breach of duty because Education Code provisions outlining its supervisory and monitoring obligations did not impose a non-delegable duty to prevent unforeseeable harm. Moreover, Yglesias was an independent contractor.

Further, CCI was not vicariously liable under ostensible agency theory. This is because evidence failed to establish that it made any statements or engaged in any conduct that would tend to generate a reasonable belief that Yglesias was its agent.