Cardenas v. Horizon Senior Living

Filed 5/19/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

PAUL CARDENAS et al., 2d Civ. No. B312091 (Super. Ct. No. 20CV0138) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

HORIZON SENIOR LIVING, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

The victim of a felony has an extended statute of limitations in which to bring an action for personal injury or wrongful death against the person convicted of that felony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.3.)1 Here we hold this extended statute of limitations does not apply to the employer of the felon in an action based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. We also hold that Labor Code section 2802, which allows an employee to be indemnified by his or her employer, does not apply to third parties. We affirm.

All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure 1

unless otherwise stated.

FACTS Mauricio Cardenas was a resident of Horizon Senior Living, Inc., doing business as Manse on Marsh (Horizon). Cardenas suffered from dementia. On many occasions, Cardenas left Horizon without knowledge of the staff. On December 21, 2014, on his last unsupervised foray away from the facility, he wandered for several miles and was hit by a car and killed. Christopher Skiff was the director of Horizon. Gary Potts was the manager. Skiff was convicted of felony elder abuse and manslaughter in Cardenas’s death with the special allegation that the elder abuse was likely to cause great bodily injury or death. Potts was convicted of felony elder abuse. Horizon was not convicted of any crime. Paul and Samuel Cardenas, heirs of Mauricio Cardenas, (Plaintiffs) brought this action against Horizon, Skiff and Potts, alleging negligence, willful misconduct, elder abuse, and wrongful death. The first amended complaint alleges that Horizon was not licensed to care for dementia patients; that defendants failed to comply with the standard of care; and that defendants knew or should have known the risk of injury for failure to comply with the standard of care. Horizon demurred to the complaint on the ground that it is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (§ 335.1.) Plaintiffs concede that more than two years have passed since they filed their complaint despite the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs argued, however, that Skiff’s and Potts’s felony convictions revived the statute of limitations under section 340.3. Plaintiffs claimed that because Horizon was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the statute of limitations was also revived as to Horizon.