Camacho v. Youde

[163]

Opinion

BUTTERMORE, J.

*

This appeal presents but one issue: whether a nonnegligent licensed employer is subject to discipline because his employee negligently performed a licensed activity. We hold he is.

Facts

Respondent does business as Camacho Aerial Service and holds an agricultural pest control license. He was hired to spray a lettuce field and was assured no authorized personnel would be in the field at the appointed hour. He instructed his pilot (Scobba) to do the job punctually to insure the field would be clear of all people. Unknown to Camacho or Scobba, the University of California, which was conducting experimentation with a certain plant disease, sent two men on an authorized but unscheduled trip into the field to obtain soil samples. They were not seen by Scobba who had made only a cursory visual inspection of the field before spraying and releasing toxic pesticide on one man, covering him from head to foot. Both Camacho and Scobba were subjected to an administrative hearing which resulted in their respective licenses being suspended for 60 days.

1

When reviewed by the superior court, the administrative determination was upheld as to Scobba who was found negligent, but reversed as to Camacho who was not.

Discussion

A licensee must be responsible for his employees’ conduct in pursuing the business for which his license is required

(Arenstein

v.

California State Bd. of Pharmacy,

265 Cal.App.2d 179 [71 Cal.Rptr. 357]). Appellant’s position is explained in Deering, California Administrative Agency Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar) 1970) section 5.15, page 285, as follows: “Aircraft pest control licensees using aircraft are required to employ licensed pilots. . . . The licensed operator, as the licensee responsible for all business operations, is responsible for violations by pilots as well as other employees. Violations of the law or regulations may therefore result in disciplinaiy actions against the operator and the pilot. See