Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis Essay

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 942 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 3

Principle-Agency Relationships

A principle-agency relationship exists between an employer and an employee. The employer sets out the scope of duties for the employee, and then the employee acts as agent in carrying out those duties. This relationship means that tortious acts committed by the employee while in the performance of duties relating to his employment are the responsibility of the company. Principals are “liable for the tortious conduct of an agent who is acting within the scope of his or her authority.” In this case, the driver Carcamo, was driving a truck on the highway, which is within the scope of his authority in his employment as a truck driver. Had the accident in question occurred while he was not in the course of his duties, the company would not have vicarious liability (Pearson, 2012).

There are a couple of different types of principal-agency relationships, including employer/employee and independent contractor. In this case, the driver, Carcamo was employee of Sugar Transport. As such, Sugar Transport “conceded its liability for any negligence ultimately attributed by the court to its employee” (Biren, 2019).

The case of Diaz v Carcamo was originally about Sugar Transport being sued by Diaz over injuries she suffered in an accident in which Carcamo was involved. There was a third party driver also involved. Carcamo, however, had a poor driving record, and that led to claims by Diaz that he should not have been hired and entrusted to drive the truck for Sugar.

Stuck Writing Your "Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis" Essay?

View All Our Example Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis Essay

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

This follows the legal principle of negligent entrustment. At issue in this case, when it arrived at California Supreme Court, was whether both the principles of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment could be applied. The California Supreme Court found that they could not, after lower courts found that they could. Thus, Sugar Transport invoked respondeat superior as a means of avoiding having to testify about Carcamo’s prior driving record. The ultimate decision in this case meant that Sugar Transport did not have to pay the $22 million in damages that were awarded in the case, because the jury had been biased by evidence that should not have been allowed.

Recommendation

The tactic used by Sugar Transport to attempt to avoid answering questions about its hiring and entrustment of Carcamo was a good approach to the issue. In California law, per Armenta v Churchill, only one of the two options can be adopted, as in this situation respondeat superior seemed to be the one that would have the lower damage award. Sugar Transport, therefore, was wise to choose that approach rather than leaving the case in the hands of the jury. They were….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis" (2019, March 10) Retrieved July 1, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/diaz-carcamo-legal-analysis-2173458

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis" 10 March 2019. Web.1 July. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/diaz-carcamo-legal-analysis-2173458>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis", 10 March 2019, Accessed.1 July. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/diaz-carcamo-legal-analysis-2173458
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example