No Clarification Needed For A Jury To Understand A Word That Is Readily Understood And Not Used In A Technical Sense.

A police officer on a motorcycle was killed when a man was exiting his employer’s driveway onto a highway at the end of the work day. The officer’s family brought a wrongful death suit against the employer, contending the employee was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision. The trial court instructed in five different ways that a finding the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment depended on a finding the employer derived some benefit from the availability of the employee’s car. The jury found in favor of the employer. On appeal, the officer’s family contended the instructions were insufficient because “benefit” was not defined. In affirming, the appellate court stated the word “benefit” is a word readily understood and was not used in any technical sense.  (Lobo v. Tamco (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 2; October 8, 2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 438, [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 515].)