Negligent Entrustment and respondeat superior (adjudged in Diaz v. Carcamo) are two types of torts among many that arose under the law of agency as a protective umbrella to third parties against actions of agents. The term agent can be defined as a person who acts on behalf of and in the name of another person, having been legally granted the authority to do so (Mayer et al, n.d). Agency relationships exist in almost all sectors of the economy especially commercial sectors. For example, employees of a company, lawyers, and distributors are all agents. Therefore, no company can exist without agents.
There are different types of agents, each categorized according to their respective functions. These include general agents, agents, agency tied with an interest, servants, subagents, special agents, and independent service providers (Mayer at al.,). As a result, three types of principal-agency relationships have been developed over the years to suit the stated functions, as explained below.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Sam Houston State University (n.d.), the three forms of principal-agency associations/relationships are; principal and agent association, master-servant association (employer and employee), and principal and independent service provider association.
In principal-agent association, the agent acts for the benefit of the principal but under its limits. Therefore, the agent has the authority to contract and represent the principal to third parties. Under the master/ servant relationship, the master controls the method and working conditions of the employee and pays the employee for the work done. However, any omission acts committed by the employee under the scope of employment are bound to the employer. On the other hand, an independent contractor relationship involves an individual who acts and obtains recompense from the employer, but whose methods and working conditions are not under the employer’s control.
The agency relationship that existed between Jose Carcamo and Sugar Transport of the Northwest Company was a master servant relationship. Jose Carcamo having been employed by the company as a driver, was making a delivery for the company when the accident happened (FindLaw, n.d.). Therefore, he was working under the employer’s scope which makes the employer liable for the tort.
The case in reference concerned a controversial accident involving more than three parties. The facts of the case stated that the respondent, Dawn Diaz, and two other passengers were dangerously injured after the car they were traveling in was hit by Tagliaferri’s car. The accident happened after Tagliaferri hit Carcamo’s truck while attempting to return to the number two lane, after which he lost control and hit Dawn Diaz (FindLaw, n.d.). As a result, the sugar company was sued for vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention of Carcamo. Consequently, the jury concluded the petitioner to be paid $22,566,373 in damages, forty-five percent of which was to be paid by Tagliaferri, twenty percent by Carcamo, and thirty-five percent by the Sugar Transport Company.
In my opinion, the company was responsible for both torts; however, the amount it was judged to pay was unfair. Both Carcamo and Tagliaferri were on the wrong side of the traffic law when the accident happened but the accident was majorly contributed by Tagliaferri. Carcamo was not driving in the designated truck lane and as Diaz claimed, was inattentive and speeding. Conversely, Tagliaferri would have prevented the accident from happening if at all he did not try to pull in front of Carcamo’s truck. Based on this argument, the only offense that Carcamo committed was driving in the wrong lane and speeding which was also not confirmed. These two offenses should have been dealt with as a separate traffic case. Tagliaferri was supposed to pay more than fifty percent of the judged amount with the remaining amount being shared by both the company and Carcamo.
According to the law of agency, Carcamo was acting on behalf of the employer (Sugar transport Company). As a result, the company was liable for the tort committed by virtue of being the respondeat superior. Additionally, the company was liable for negligent hiring, retention, and entrusting of the truck to Carcamo. Employment and driving history records presented to the court showed that Carcamo had a poor driving profile. He had been involved in two prior accidents in the same company with the recent being just two weeks before the accident happened. Hence, Sugar Company had acted negligently in hiring Carcamo without checking his driving history and should have paid the highest portion of the remaining fine. A different court case would consequently have been filed suing both Tagliaferri and Carcamo for reckless driving.
The Human Resource department of Sugar transport Company erred in hiring Carcamo. It is evident that Carcamo was not a qualified driver, thus putting the company at risk of being sued for discrimination in hiring by driving job applicants who had applied for the job together with Carcamo.
Secondly, it was discovered that Carcamo had been in the country illegally and made use of a spurious social security number to seek employment. If the human resource department was vigilant during the hiring process, it would have recognized this mistake and not hired him. The company had violated the law of hiring/ harboring of an illegal alien and was, therefore, guilty of a misdemeanor (Fair, 1999). An example of a company that was charged with violating this law is Asplundh, a tree-trimming company that was found guilty of hiring and rehiring illegal aliens and as a result, it was fined $96 million (North, 2017).
References
51 CAL. 4TH 1148, 253 P.3D 535, 126 CAL. RPTR. 3D 443 Fair. (n.d.). The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens | Federation for American Immigration Reform. Retrieved from http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens
FindLaw. (n.d.). DIAZ V. CARCAMO. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1509265.html
Mayer, D., Warner, D. M., Siedel, G. J., Lierberman, J. K., & Martina, A. R. (n.d.). Introduction to Agency and the Types of Agents. In The Legal Environment and Business Law: Executive MBA Edition (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/the-legal-environment-and-business-law-executive-mba-edition/s14-relationships-between-principa.html
North, D. (2017, September 29). It's About Time? Employer Hit by $96 Million Penalty for Hiring Illegal Aliens. Retrieved from https://cis.org/North/Its-About-Time-Employer-Hit-96-Million-Penalty-Hiring-Illegal-Aliens
Sam Houston State University. (n.d.). AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS: OVERVIEW. Retrieved from https://www.shsu.edu/klett/agency%20et%20al.htm
