Diaz v. Carcamo: Its Impact on Vicarious Liability and Direct Negligence in California
In Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, a trucking company argued that its admission of vicariously liability for its driver’s negligence barred the plaintiff’s negligent entrustment, hiring, and retention claims, and prohibited evidence of the company’s negligence at trial.
The California Supreme Court agreed: “[A]n employer’s admission of vicarious liability for an employee’s negligent driving in the course of employment bars a plaintiff from pursuing a claim for negligent entrustment.” (Diaz at 1161.) In other words, by admitting vicarious liability, an employer can preclude direct negligence claims against it and exclude evidence of its own negligence.
Key Takeaways from Diaz v. Carcamo
Employers cannot be held liable for negligent entrustment when they admit vicarious liability.
If an employer concedes that it is vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence under respondeat superior, a plaintiff cannot separately sue for negligent entrustment, hiring, supervision, or retention.
“If, as here, an employer offers to admit vicarious liability for its employee’s negligent driving, then claims against the employer based on theories of negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention become superfluous.” (Diaz at 1160.)
The decision limits plaintiffs’ ability to introduce evidence of an employee’s past conduct.
If an employer admits vicarious liability, the employee’s prior driving history or other past misconduct may not be admissible because it is no longer relevant to liability determination. This prevents plaintiffs from introducing additional evidence of employer negligence that could prejudice the jury against the employer.
In Diaz, for example, the employer’s admission of vicarious liability precluded evidence of the driver’s past accidents, poor employment record, and the employer’s inadequate hiring practices. (Diaz at 1161.)
This helps employers avoid character evidence of an employee’s prior conduct that could sway a jury.
Plaintiffs must prove the employee’s negligence to hold the employer liable.
Since an employer’s liability is derivative of the employee’s negligence, a plaintiff must first establish that the employee acted negligently before holding the employer accountable.
“No matter how negligent an employer was in entrusting a vehicle to an employee, however, it is only if the employee then drove negligently that the employer can be liable for negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention. If the employee did not drive negligently, and thus is zero percent at fault, then the employer’s share of fault is zero percent. That is true even if the employer entrusted its vehicle to an employee whom it knew, or should have known, to be a habitually careless driver with a history of accidents.” (Diaz at 1160.)
Impact on Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases
For personal injury law firms like the Hulburt Law Firm, this decision affects case strategy in trucking accidents, commercial vehicle crashes, and other employer-employee liability cases.
Defendants will likely admit vicarious liability to limit exposure.
Employers are now more inclined to admit that their employee was acting within the scope of employment to prevent plaintiffs from introducing damaging evidence about hiring, training, or supervision.
Plaintiffs must focus on proving the employee’s negligence.
Since direct negligence claims against the employer may be dismissed, the focus shifts entirely to proving the employee’s wrongful conduct.
Plaintiffs should consider a punitive damages claim against the employer.
A vicariously liable employer can still be held liable for punitive damages based on its own misconduct. In CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, for example, the court held that a vicariously liable employer may be subject to an award of punitive damages when it engages in malice, oppression, or fraud.
“[W]hen an employer such as CRST admits vicarious liability, neither the complaint’s allegations of employer misconduct relating to the recovery of punitive damages nor the evidence supporting those allegations are superfluous. Nothing in Diaz…suggests otherwise.” (CRST, Inc. at 1264.)
By alleging punitive damages when possible, plaintiffs can maintain the discoverability and relevance of employer misconduct.
Conclusion
Diaz v. Carcamo reinforces that once an employer admits vicarious liability, claims of direct negligence against the employer are no longer viable. For personal injury attorneys, this means carefully structuring claims to ensure the best chance of securing full and fair compensation for victims. At Hulburt Law Firm, we fight to uncover every avenue of recovery—because in catastrophic injury cases, The Truth Demands Justice.
Related Content:
Conor Hulburt is a plaintiff’s trial attorney and co-founder of the Hulburt Law Firm in San Diego, California.
Request a Free Case Review
Simply fill out the form or call 619.821.0500 to receive a free case review. We’ll evaluate what happened, your injuries, and potential defendants to determine how we can best help you.
The Hulburt Law Firm specializes in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death cases in San Diego, California.
