Mendes v. RMR Financial CA6
Laura Bertoldi provided personal assistant and corporate concierge services for respondent RMR Financial, LLC, dba Princeton Capital, (Princeton Capital). Bertoldi was going to the grocery store for Princeton Capital when the car she was driving struck appellant Lucille Mendes, injuring her. Mendes brought this tort action against Princeton Capital on the theory that Bertoldi was acting as Princeton Capital’s agent at the time of the accident, such that Princeton Capital was vicariously liable for Bertoldi’s alleged negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in Princeton Capital’s favor, concluding that the only inference to be drawn from the undisputed evidence was that no agency relationship existed. Mendes appeals. The sole issue on appeal is whether there exists a triable issue of fact as to whether there existed an agency relationship between Bertoldi and Princeton Capital at the time of the accident. Concluding there does, we reverse.
Comments on Mendes v. RMR Financial CA6