Diaz v. Carcamo Legal Analysis. Essay Example

Sugar Transport of the Northwest, LLC is the employer, which is supposed to take full responsibility for their employees’ actions within their market niche parameter. Dawn Diaz was severely injured in a tremendous tragedy, which involved truck driver Jose Carcamo which made him sue both Sugar Transport and Carcamo for being the leading cause of the accident. According to Diaz, the purpose of accidents emerged as a result of negligent hiring and retention and vicarious liability. However, the Sugar Transport Company admitted the mistakes made by their driver but still went ahead and hid the evidence, which was supposed to show the negligent hiring and retention of Jose, which made the Supreme Court refuse to exclude evidence in the motion. The motorist Diaz was trying to avoid the truck, which was being controlled by Carcamo but mistakenly ran into the vehicle (June 23). This paper will analyze the case of Diaz v. Carcamo and find out if the blame falls on the sugar transport company or its human resource department.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Principle-agency relationship

There are different types of principal agency relationships displayed in the case, which is between, and employer and an employee. The employer is tasked with the responsibility of providing scope of duties for the workers, and the workers are expected to act as an agent while trying to accomplish the assigned duties. The principle-agency relationship means that any irresponsible act done by their work while in the line of job duty relating to his employment is the full responsibility of the employer or the company. The seniors or principals are responsible for any irresponsible act of their worker who is operating within the scope of their authority and in this case, Jose Carcamo was using the highway, which is within the job scope of his power or control as the truck driver (FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions, 2010). Hence, if the accident had happened when he is not within the parameters of his job duties, then the company would not have been accused of vicarious liability. However, there are also various forms of principal-agency relationships, which include employer/employee and the individual independent contractor (June 23). In this case, scenario, the truck driver Carcamo was the worker under the sugar transport authority, which made the court hold the sugar transport company liable for negligence, which was caused by their employee.

Sugar Transportation Company Human Resource Department

The case displays some merits on how the court overlooked the human resource department's negligence concerning Jose Carcamo’s driving profile. Since Sugar Transportation, the company human resource department, was responsible for hiring and retaining Jose Carcamo as their driver makes them questionable on their decision to employ him, meaning that there is an issue with the hiring and recruitment process (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2017). Also, if the recruitment and hiring crew of the human resource department were keen and cautious about the company policy, they would have employed a minor fault or even dismissed the Jose Carcamo application in their company.

However, according to The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Regulations (FMCSA), the truck driver for Sugar Transportation Company was disqualified from being hired by any other company in the same industry. Also, the human resource management department was excluded by FMCSA and became unacceptable when it comes to hiring and recruitment process of sugar Transportation companies (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2017). The FMCSA disqualification entails that when a particular driver is charged with a disqualifying offense, then he/she is automatically disqualified from driving for a certain period according to the court ruling.

Recommendations

There are many recommendations that an individual can learn from Diaz v.Carcamo case. The first action is to make sure that the human resource department is extra cautious when it comes to the recruitment and hiring process of truck drivers in their company. For instance, the recruitment and hiring team has to make sure that an applicant's resume has few or no record of accidents for the past years in their current employment company and possess a certificate of passing the DOT test. Besides, an applicant for the truck position should have no violation records in the past five or three years of their experience as truck drivers. Another action to exercise is that the human resource department, transportation management, and company’s president should conduct a vigorous screening of the top candidates in the interview to get the best or most qualified individual to fill the vacant position.

Moreover, through the strategy mentioned above, the company will have no or minimal cases of truck accidents in the future. Last but not least is that the qualified candidate or applicant will have to undergo vigorous training with the company’s most experienced driver for two months to make sure that the new driver is competent of starting operating alone when given the job duties. However, in case of an accident occurring within the specified period of training the new employee, the driver has to begin the shadowing and training process again to make sure that all the paperwork is correctly filled and safely documented before being fully awarded the job contract.

References

| June 23, 2011 at 12:00 AM. Diaz v. Carcamo. 23 June 2011, www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202498331863/?slreturn=20200705022429.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (2017), www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/391.15.

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal Case and Opinions. 25 Feb. 2010, caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1509265.html.