|
Diaz v. Carcamo
California Court of Appeal
Second Appellate District
2010 DJDAR 2852
On February 24, 2010, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion in Diaz v. Carcamo, analyzing whether an employer whose worker caused automobile injury could be held responsible for the injuries under both vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention theories.
Dawn Diaz was seriously injured when her vehicle was struck by a vehicle which had jumped the center divider on the 101 freeway following a collision with a company truck driven by Jose Carcamo. Diaz sued the driver of the car that struck hers, as well as both Carcamo and Sugar Transport, alleging that Sugar Transport was vicariously liable as Carcamo’s employer. She further alleged that Sugar Transport was liable for its independent negligence in its hiring and retention of Carcamo.
The jury returned a verdict against each defendant awarding plaintiff a total of $22,566,373 in damages and, pursuant to Proposition 412 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1431 et seq.), apportioned 20 percent of fault for the accident to Carcamo, 35 percent to Sugar Transport, and the remainder to the third driver (who had settled with Diaz prior to trial). Sugar Transport appealed, contending that it had admitted it was vicariously liable for Carcamo’s conduct, and that the trial court therefore erred in permitting Diaz to proceed against it for negligent hiring and retention, which was compounded by the trial court’s allowance of evidence regarding Carcamo’s background and involvement in several prior accidents. Sugar Transport’s position was that an employer’s liability for its employee’s actions is derivative only and it could not be liable for damages greater than that imposed on its employee.
The Court of Appeal rejected Sugar Transport’s argument, ruling that a defendant who is vicariously liable for another’s actions may also bear some direct responsibility for an accident. Negligent hiring and retention is a theory of direct liability, independent of vicarious liability. The Court further ruled that evidence regarding Carcamo’s background was properly admitted at trial for the limited purpose of determining whether Sugar Transport was negligent in hiring or retaining Carcamo, based on its knowledge of the Carcamo’s prior accidents. The trial court properly issued a limiting instruction to the jury, and the evidence was not offered to prove Carcamo was at fault in the present accident.
Should you have any questions about the contents of this correspondence, or would like more information regarding the recent case law described above, please feel free to contact us at our website: www.sollp.com.
|
