Running head: BUSINESS LAW 1
5
BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
[Name]
[Institutional Affiliation]
[Date Submitted]
Business Law
In the Diaz v Carcamo case, the supreme court of California ruled that employers are liable for injuries that are sustained by individuals due to the negligent driving of employees. Therefore, it means that an individual injured by someone driving a car in employment may sue the driver as well the employer of the driver. The principal-agent relationship is described as an arranged in which one entity appoints another on its behalf (Moran, 2008).The agent, therefore, acts on behalf of the principle and there should be no conflict of interest in carrying out the particular act. In this relationship, the principal is the individual who assigns the agent to carry out the task. The agent is the individual who is capable of understanding and carrying out the task assigned by the principal. It is important to note that the agent has the obligation to perform tasks using a certain level of skill and care and is not expected to intentionally or even negligently complete the task in a manner that is improper.
The relationship remains a fiduciary relationship between all involved parties and this means that all tasks must be carried out with the principal’s best interest in priority. In this particular scenario, the relationship between Carcamo and Sugar transport is a fiduciary relationship adhering to the contract given (Moran, 2008).In the particular scenario, it is important to consider that Carcamo had an accident of reckless driving and there are questions concerning whether Sugar Transport we negligent in their hiring procedures. The employer, Sugar Transport, may have failed to implement duty of care in the hiring of Carcamo and especially so if they had prior knowledge of his history as well as information linked to his previous actions. The court would, therefore, make the right decision to charge Sugar Company with vicarious liability as well as negligent entrustment.
One should consider Roberts vs. Ford Corp case where the court rejected a similar claim that the employer should be liable in such a situation. It, therefore, reveals that the principal is under obligation or liability that is independent of the agent’s activities. It is also important to consider that Sugar Department’s human resource department has a major role to play in the hiring of employees and it should have been more cautious in the hiring of Carcamo. It is important to understand that an organization has an important role to play in the hiring of an employee and this means that it may be held liable for the negligent conduct of its employees. Using the direct liability theory one realizes that the employer may be directly liable for negligent hiring as well as training and supervision of employees (Minioza, 2012).In this particular scenario, the court would have to consider if there is a direct liability claim and at the same time it is necessary to consider if the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time when the accident actually occurred. Sugar Company has established that Carcamo was working in the scope of employment at the time of the accident. It is, however, necessary to consider that Carcamo actually left out vital information when applying for the job. A consideration of respondent superior would, therefore, prove that the employer is solely liable in this particular aspect.
However, the employer, in this case, has admitted to being vicariously liable and therefore this means that there is no claim to show how negligent the driver may actually have been prior to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, any evidence that is linked to prior conduct is not relevant in this particular case (Minioza, 2012).This case may, therefore, rest on the fact that the employer is liable under vicarious liability for any damages that may be given to Diaz, who is the plaintiff. In this scenario, the court has given instruction that evidence concerning Carcamo’s previous history can only be used for finding negligent hiring as well as retention of the employee. Any evidence of prior acts, therefore, cannot be used to determine whether Carcamo was actually negligent on the day of this particular incident. It is important also to note that issues related to negligent hiring and retention in this scenario are only theories of direct liability and not of vicarious liability.
It is important to note that the employer, in this case, is not directly liable for the acts of the employee based on the history of the employee. The evidence in this scenario revealed that Taliaferro was at fault for the accident because he pulled into Carcamo’s lane without signaling (Moran, 2008).The most suitable outcome would, therefore, be to divide the fault between the two drivers since the company should not be liable for the actions of the employee. In conclusion, it is important to consider that it would be prejudicial to consider the past evidence of the plaintiff and connect it to this case. The previous incidences concerning Carcamo cannot be connected to this case since this is an isolated incident. Sugar Transport admitted vicarious liability and this means all evidence should be excluded as per the past of the plaintiff. Causation is a major point to consider in order ensuring that there is an equitable allocation of loss in this scenario.
References
Minioza, J. (2012, September 12). The California Supreme Court’s Decision in Diaz v. Carcamo and Potential Effect on An Employer’s Liability for Claims for Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision and Retention. Retrieved from JD SUPRA: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-california-supreme-courts-decision-89751/
Moran, J. J. (2008). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment. Pearson Prentice Hall.
The post Running head: BUSINESS LAW 1 5 BUSINESS LAW Business Law [Name] [Institutional appeared first on PapersSpot.
