Diaz v. Carcamo: Vicarious Liability in Truck Accidents

In Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, a trucking company argued that its admission of vicarious 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, holding that: "[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.

​Since Diaz, trucking companies are happy to admit that their driver was within the scope of employment to prevent plaintiffs from introducing damaging evidence of the company's negligent hiring, training, or supervision, which inevitably involves evidence of prior misconduct by the driver. Diaz effectively eliminates half of a plaintiff's previously admissible evidence.

‍

Key Takeaways from Diaz v. Carcamo

1. An company's admission of vicarious liability bars claims against it for its own negligence.

If an employer concedes that it is vicariously liable for an employee's driving, 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.)

​

2. Diaz makes evidence of company negligence and a driver's past misconduct inadmissible at trial.

Once an employer admits vicarious liability, evidence of the employer's negligence is not longer admissible. This means the driver's employee file, including prior driving history or other past misconduct, will not be admissible because it is no longer relevant to the jury's liability determination. 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.) Diaz effectively shields trucking companies from evidence of their own neglect.

​​

3. Plaintiffs must prove the driver's negligence to hold the company 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 [...]. 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.)

​

4. Companies will assert Diaz in an attempt to limit discovery into the driver's employee file.

Defendant companies will admit vicarious liability early and then deny discovery requests relating to its driver's hiring, driving history, and employee file. They will argue that such requests are irrelevant. However, Diaz does not bar a punitive damages claim against the employer, and as discussed below, Plaintiffs have a right to conduct discovery into the potential for punitive damages.

‍

5. Plaintiffs should consider a punitive damages claim against the company.

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, 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 whenever possible, plaintiffs can maintain the discoverability and relevance of employer misconduct. This can significantly increase the strength of the evidence against the defendants.

‍

6. Be prepared for a motion in limine from the company to exclude or limit references to it at trial.

In a recent trial, the defendant company moved in limine to exclude any mention of it at trial based on Diaz. The company, a large corporation, argued that under Diaz, there was nothing for the jury to decide related to it. Only the driver would be mentioned on the verdict form, and the only decision for the jury to make was whether the driver was negligent. The defendant argued that reference to the company at trial would be irrelevant and would only prejudice the defendant by suggesting to the jury that a large corporation would pay the verdict.

Thankfully, this very issue was addressed in Keener v. Jeld-Wen Inc. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 848. In Keener, over the defendant's objections, the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to inform the jury that defendant driver was employed by the defendant company at the time of the accident. On appeal, defendants argued that plaintiffs repeated references throughout the trial to "the defendants" as plural improperly emphasized the employer's role, potentially prejudicing the jury by portraying the employer as a "deep pocket." The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that it would have been a "fiction" to disregard the employment relationship entirely: "It would be a fiction to disregard the fact that [the driver] was not driving his own truck on his own business, and the jury was not required to do so."

In our trial, after reading Keener, the court denied the defendants' motion and permitted mention of the defendant company, including evidence that the defendant driver was in the course of his employment and driving a company vehicle.

‍

Conclusion

Diaz confirms that once a company admits vicarious liability, claims of direct negligence against it are no longer viable. For personal injury attorneys, this means focusing on proving the driver's negligence, while also exploring viable punitive damages theories.

Working with an experienced truck accident attorney who understands these strategic considerations can make a meaningful difference in your case outcome. If you or a loved one has been seriously injured in a trucking accident in San Diego, Hulburt Law Firm is ready to help. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your legal options.​​

Conor Hulburt is a plaintiff’s trial attorney and co-founder of the Hulburt Law Firm in San Diego, California.