Imagine you are driving on a southern California highway when a company vehicle suddenly rear-ends you, causing significant injuries. You later discover the driver was an employee rushing to make a delivery. In the legal process that follows, you name both the driver (the employee) and the employer in your lawsuit. This approach often makes sense because, under California law, employers can be held responsible for the negligent acts of their employees. But what exactly does that mean, and how does it work in court? Below is a look at the key theories of liability against employers in these scenarios and what might happen if you decide to dismiss the employee from the case.
Theories of Liability Against the Employer
One of the most common legal bases for suing an employer for a car accident in California is vicarious liability, often referred to as “respondeat superior.” Under this doctrine, an employer is automatically liable for the negligent actions of its employees that occur within the scope of their employment. If the employee was driving for work-related purposes at the time of the accident—making a delivery, traveling to a job site, or running a company errand—then the employer generally shares responsibility for whatever harm the employee caused.
Beyond vicarious liability, you may also allege direct negligence on the part of the employer. This can take several forms:
Negligent hiring: The employer should have realized the employee was unfit or unlicensed.
Negligent training or supervision: The employer did not give the employee proper training or oversight.
Negligent retention: The employer knew or should have known the employee was unsafe or incompetent but continued to employ them in a driving capacity anyway.
These claims go beyond merely holding the employer liable for what the employee did. They focus on the employer’s own actions (or failures to act) that allowed a careless driver to operate a vehicle in the first place.
The Diaz v. Carcamo Decision
The California Supreme Court clarified these issues in Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148. In that case, the employer conceded it was vicariously liable for its employee’s negligent driving. The Court held that when an employer admits it is responsible for the employee’s negligence under respondeat superior, pursuing direct negligence claims (like negligent hiring or supervision) against the employer might not change the total amount of damages awarded.
Why? Once the employer agrees it is on the hook for everything the employee did wrong, there is no additional liability to pile on. In other words, the employer’s acknowledgment of responsibility effectively absorbs any further claims based on that same accident. For plaintiffs, this means that direct negligence theories may not expand the scope of financial recovery—unless there are separate, distinct reasons for including them (such as punitive damages in certain extreme cases, or to overcome a potential dispute over whether the employee was acting in the scope of employment).
What Happens if the Employee Is Dismissed?
It is not unusual for a plaintiff to dismiss the employee from the lawsuit, particularly if:
The employee has few personal assets.
The employer’s insurance coverage will likely be the primary source of recovery.
The employer acknowledges it will cover any damages awarded for the employee’s conduct.
Dismissing the employee generally will not reduce your potential compensation if the employer remains in the case. Since the employer stands in the shoes of the employee under the respondeat superior doctrine, it remains fully liable for any negligence that caused your injuries.
That said, you might consider keeping the employee in the case if you have good reason to believe the employer will deny the employee acted within the scope of employment, or if you need the employee’s testimony about the employer’s practices. Sometimes, including direct claims against both the employee and the employer helps establish all the details of how the crash occurred. But if the employer concedes that the employee was working at the time of the accident, naming the employee is often unnecessary—especially in light of Diaz v. Carcamo.
Practical Takeaways
Establishing scope of employment is key. If the employer disputes that the employee was on the job at the time of the accident, be ready to prove otherwise.
Direct negligence claims may not always increase damages. Once an employer admits vicarious liability, additional claims—like negligent hiring or supervision—may not add to the total recovery unless there is a unique factor.
Insurance coverage is crucial. If the employer has significant insurance, pursuing claims against the employee personally may not be worth the time and cost.
Dismissal of the employee can streamline litigation. If the employer’s liability is clear, keeping the employee in the case may just complicate matters.
Ultimately, deciding whether to name both the employer and the employee depends on the specific circumstances of the accident and litigation strategy. Diaz v. Carcamo confirms that when the employer admits fault for the employee’s actions, direct negligence claims against the employer may not yield a bigger award. Still, each case is unique, and these decisions should be made in consultation with an experienced attorney who can guide you through the process and ensure you recover full and fair compensation for your injuries.
This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you need legal advice about a specific accident or injury, consult a qualified attorney who can evaluate the details of your case.
Comments