A reported San Mateo County lawsuit over a company-vehicle collision illustrates how California separates vicarious employer liability, negligent entrustment, and claims against event organizers.
What the Lawsuit Reportedly Alleges
Road & Track reported on November 12, 2026 that Michelle Brooks has filed a civil complaint in San Mateo County Superior Court against Tesla, Inc., driver Micah Zuglian, event organizer Ethan Garabedian (reportedly doing business as “9burgring”), and host Ambassador Wine Bars LLC. The report did not state a filing date, and the November 12 coverage date should not be treated as one. 1
According to the reported complaint, the collision occurred on August 30, 2026, on State Route 84 near La Honda, after a Cars & Coffee gathering. The complaint reportedly alleges that Zuglian, driving a company-owned Model Y, was demonstrating the vehicle’s performance for two event photographers, exceeded posted limits, crossed the double-yellow line on a curve, and struck Brooks’s vehicle head-on, causing serious injuries. 1
The complaint also reportedly alleges that law-enforcement and county representatives urged organizers beforehand to cancel the gathering over traffic-safety concerns. It reportedly asserts that Tesla negligently entrusted the vehicle and failed to adequately supervise the driver, and that the organizers were negligent in proceeding. 1
These are allegations. No court has found any defendant liable, and the defendants’ positions were not available in the sources reviewed for this article.
When Is an Employee Acting Within the Scope of Employment?
Under respondeat superior, an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence within the scope of employment. California’s jury instruction, CACI No. 3720, describes conduct as within that scope if it is reasonably related to the kinds of tasks the employee was employed to perform, or reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer’s business or the employee’s job responsibilities. 2
The employer need not have authorized the particular negligent act. The instruction’s Sources and Authority quote the California Supreme Court’s statement that conduct disregarding an employer’s express orders may nonetheless fall within the scope of employment. 2
The opposite is also true: being an employee, driving a company vehicle, or attending an event does not by itself establish scope of employment. The question generally turns on what the employee was actually doing and how that activity related to the work.
Vicarious liability does not require proof that the employer itself was careless. Claims that the employer acted negligently are a separate inquiry.
How Is Negligent Entrustment Different?
Negligent entrustment focuses on the defendant’s own decision to let someone drive. Under CACI No. 724, a plaintiff generally must prove that:
- The driver was negligent in operating the vehicle;
- The defendant owned the vehicle, or possessed it with the owner’s permission;
- The defendant knew, or should have known, that the driver was incompetent or unfit to drive;
- The defendant permitted the driver to drive; and
- The driver’s incompetence or unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the harm. [3]
An accident, or even alleged speeding, does not by itself show that the employer knew or should have known of unfitness when it permitted the driving. That knowledge must be proved.
The complaint reportedly also alleges inadequate supervision. Negligent hiring, supervision, or retention theories are related direct-negligence claims, and the Sources and Authority for CACI No. 724 note that they often rely on similar awareness of unfitness. Such theories do not necessarily proceed independently, and they do not permit duplicate recovery for the same harm. Other vehicle-owner liability rules may also apply depending on the facts. 3
Can Event Organizers Also Be Liable?
Organizing a gathering does not automatically make an organizer responsible for every participant’s driving on nearby roads. A negligence claim requires a legally recognized duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Courts generally distinguish an organizer’s own conduct that allegedly creates a risk from an alleged failure to control another person’s conduct. The latter is usually more limited. Prior warnings may be relevant evidence, but they do not automatically establish a duty or causation.
Whether any organizer or host owed or breached a duty in this case is unresolved, and this article does not decide it.
What Evidence Can Matter?
In employer-vehicle collision cases generally, useful evidence may include:
- Vehicle-use authorizations, policies, and usage records.
- The employee’s assigned duties and what the employee was doing at the time.
- Event arrangements and related communications.
- Driver training records and any prior notice of unfitness.
- Witness accounts, photographs, and video.
- Collision reports and medical records.
This is a general checklist; it does not suggest that any particular record exists in this case.
Mahrouyan Law’s Personal Injury practice addresses claims arising from motor-vehicle collisions and other injuries.
Sources
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Discuss Your Matter
If you were injured in a collision involving a company vehicle, contact Mahrouyan Law to discuss your matter. The appropriate approach depends on the facts and applicable law.
Omeed Mahrouyan is the founder of Mahrouyan Law, P.C., a California firm handling business and commercial litigation, property and cargo damage claims, personal injury, landlord representation, startup transactions, and practical intellectual property matters. Clients work directly with him on strategy, drafting, and case decisions.
More about Omeed Mahrouyan →