$3.8 Million Verdict Upheld Against Jelly Belly for Crash Caused by Driver of Promotional 'Jelly Bean Car'
A California appellate court refused to let Jelly Belly Candy Company withdraw its attorney's prior admission that a driver operating the company's touring promotional vehicle was acting within the scope of employment when she collided with and injured a California woman, leaving a jury verdict of nearly $3.8 million intact.
What happened
Jelly Belly Candy Company sent a distinctively decorated promotional vehicle across the country as a brand ambassador on wheels. The driver of that vehicle, a Jelly Belly employee, was traveling in the course of that promotional mission when she struck the plaintiff in a collision in Stanislaus County, California. The crash caused significant injuries that required medical treatment and left lasting effects on the victim's daily life.
Christopher W. Wood of Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood Campora, LLP tried the case against Jelly Belly in Modesto during the COVID-19 pandemic. At trial, the central question was whether Jelly Belly bore responsibility for its driver's negligence. A cornerstone of the plaintiff's case was an admission, made by Jelly Belly's former attorney during the litigation, that the driver was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the collision. California law holds employers vicariously liable for torts committed by employees acting within that scope, so the admission went to the heart of the company's liability.
The Stanislaus County jury found in the plaintiff's favor and returned a verdict of $4.3 million. Jelly Belly moved post-trial to withdraw the prior attorney's admission on scope of employment, a procedural maneuver that, if granted, could have dismantled the liability finding entirely. The trial court rejected that attempt.
Jelly Belly took the matter to the California Court of Appeal, again pressing to undo the admission and, with it, the verdict. The appellate panel declined. The court found no valid basis for allowing Jelly Belly to retract its former attorney's concession at that late stage of the proceedings. After post-trial and appellate proceedings, the amount left standing was nearly $3.8 million, somewhat below the original $4.3 million jury award.
The decision confirmed that a company cannot deploy branded vehicles across the country as part of its promotional operations and then disclaim responsibility for accidents those vehicles cause when traveling in furtherance of the company's business.
Sources
This account is drawn from contemporaneous public reporting and the court record.