In Holt v. Booth (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1074, a case remarkably similar to the one before us, an employee ran into another vehicle (Ritchie) while driving from his home to a meeting at his employer's office. The other driver brought suit against the employee and his employer under a respondeat superior theory. The jury returned a special verdict finding the employee liable to the driver for the collision, but found the employer not liable because the employee was not acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The employee filed a motion notwithstanding the verdict challenging the jury's verdict exonerating his employer. The motion was denied and the employee appealed. The Court of Appeal held that Holt had no standing to appeal the denial of his motion because he was not an aggrieved party. (Code Civ. Proc., 902.) It reasoned the employee, as an agent of the employer, is individually liable for his own torts and "the exoneration of a joint tortfeasor from liability does not 'aggrieve' the other individually liable tortfeasor(s) insofar as that word is understood to apply to a party's standing to appeal." (1 Cal.App.4th at p. 1080, ) In light of this long-established rule, the court rejected the employee's claim he is aggrieved because the exoneration of his employer deprives him of the indemnification to which he might have been entitled under Labor Code section 2802.