Introduction
The Supreme Court of California, with the aim of protecting individuals from accidents caused by employees of a particular company, implemented legislation that finds the employer liable for the injuries sustained by these individuals. On this note, the legislation states that an individual injured by a company car during employment may sue both the driver and their employer. The employer is entitled to face the law based on two provisions. Based on negligent entrustment, the employer is liable for being negligent while hiring incompetent drivers while the respondent superior applies in the sense that negligent driving occurred in the course of employment irrespective of fault. In this regard, the paper focuses on defining the relationship between Jose Carcamo, the driver, and Sugar Transport of the Northwest Company as well as the role of the HR department in hiring Carcamo with the aim of determining other employment law issues that prove to be problematic with the hiring of Carcamo.
Types of Principal-Agency Relationships
A principal-agency relationship is the arrangement put in place in which one entity appoints the other on a legal basis to represent them and operate on their behalf. The principal may be an individual, corporation, organization, or a company which assigns an agent, relatively referred to as the agency for a legal transaction (Walker 2015). Such a relationship may be associated with various challenges which include the occurrence of a conflict between both parties' incentives. One of these kind of relationships is independent contractor. Such a relationship entitles the agency into representing the principal and making contracts with third parties. The employer does not control the agent's working conditions. The other type is the actual authority where the principal might void the contract hence making the agency’s authority irrelevant. Ratification is the other kind of a relationship where the agent makes an implied affirmation of previous unauthorized contracts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The type of relationship existing in this case is an independent contractor one. The reason behind such a claim is that the driver is obliged to represent the company during employment while undertaking its operations and portraying its core values and incentives.
Recommendation for Course of Action concerning the Lawsuit and Carcamo's Employment
Based on the lawsuit, the company is liable to Carcamo's actions whatsoever which means that it is entirely upon its HR department to control and monitor its employees. One of the recommendations is the determination of the actual type of principal-agency relationship that exists and its terms and conditions as agreed by both parties (Harris & Krueger, 2015). This would help the court consider all the aspects of the relationship and its guidelines hence producing an agreeable verdict. The other recommendation would be the consideration of whether the defendant and the accused have a relationship that is contested. Moreover, it would be favorable to target the HR department especially its manager since it is the specific sector that hired an incompetent driver.
Responsibilities of Sugar Transport's Human Resource Department for their Role of Hiring Carcamo
The Human Resource department of the Sugar Transport Company is responsible for their role in hiring Carcamo. On this note, it is upon the HR of a company to ensure that the hired employees promote maximum levels of competence and are relatively responsible in the execution of their employment duties. Not only is the HR department tasked with the role of hiring but is also responsible for monitoring employee performance and relations within the job context. This means that it is upon the HR to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of Carcamo within the course of employment. If the HR department would have found the driver to be incompetent before the occurrence of the accident, it would be the HR manager's responsibility to fire him or exercise other forms of problem-solving approaches (Bamberger, Meshoulan & Bron, 2014). Overall, the hiring of Carcamo is the sole responsibility of the company's HR department.
Other Employment Law Issues that are Problematic Concerning the Hiring of Carcamo
The hiring of Carcamo is not only associated with the issue of negligence and incompetence but is also structured around various employment law issues. One of the employment law issues involved in this case is the provision of training programs and effective communication measures for supervisors, employees, and managers within the company. Such a violation prevails in a way that the driver shows incompetence due to the level of negligence and ignorance portrayed during employment as it conforms to the Occupational Safety Act of 1970 (Arbury et al., 2014). Indeed, safety measures should be a key priority in the training programs offered to employees.
Conclusion
Overall, there is various employment law issues that are relatively problematic with the hiring of Carcamo by the company's HR department. Under the applicable independent contractor principal-agency relationship, the company is obliged to ensure that the driver and other employees exercise maximum caution during employment. Therefore, the legislation that makes an employer liable to the injuries sustained by individuals due to the negligence of their employees is vital in ensuring both the employer and employee develop a mutual relationship governed by the sense of responsibility for their actions.
References
Arbury, S., Jacklitsch, B., Farquah, O., Hodgson, M., Lamson, G., Martin, H., & Profitt, A. (2014). Heat illness and death among workers-United States, 2012-2013. MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report , 63 (31), 661-665.
Bamberger, P. A., Meshoulam, I., & Biron, M. (2014). Human resource strategy: Formulation, implementation, and impact . Routledge.
Harris, S. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2015). A Proposal for Modernizing Labor Laws for Twenty-First-Century Work: The" Independent Worker" . Hamilton Project, Brookings.
Walker, C. J. (2015). Inside Agency Statutory Interpretation. Stan. L. Rev. , 67 , 999.
