Skip to Content
California High Court Looks At Employer Liability in Truck Accident Case

High Court Addresses Employer Liability in Truck Accidents

The great risks posed by large and heavy commercial trucks driving on the same streets and highways as passenger vehicles are well understood. Catastrophic injuries that result from truck accidents bear evidence to the terrible forces at play when a big rig slams into a smaller vehicle. Because big rig wrecks often result in more severe injuries, such as traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and burns, truck accident lawsuits can be very complicated. They can often involve not only development of liability theories, but also a complex assessment of the full extent of damages.

A crucial aspect of successfully obtaining full compensation for clients in truck accident cases is identifying all potentially liable parties. To do this, the lawyer must investigate not only the truck driver's role in the accident, but also the extent to which the trucking company, the truck manufacturer, and others may have contributed to the accident.

In Diaz v. Carcamo, the California Supreme Court recently resolved a case involving allegations of a truck driver's negligent actions as well as his employer's negligence in hiring and retaining the driver. At issue was the question of whether or not evidence of the company's negligent entrustment would be admissible if the trucking company admitted vicarious liability for the trucker's negligence.

Theories of Vicarious & Direct Liability

The case involved a serious car/truck accident on Highway 101 in Ventura County. The plaintiff, Dawn Diaz, suffered severe and permanent injuries when her southbound SUV was struck by a northbound vehicle that flew over the divider into her lane after it collided with Jose Carcamo’s northbound commercial truck. Diaz subsequently sued the driver of the third vehicle, Carcamo (for negligent driving) and his employer, Sugar Transport (for Carcamo’s negligent driving as well as negligent hiring).

In response to Diaz's personal injury claim, Carcamo and Sugar Transport both denied that they had been negligent and argued that the third driver was solely at fault. Carcamo was driving in the center of three lanes and the record showed that the other driver hit his truck after passing on the left and merging back into the center lane in front of him without signaling. Diaz alleged that Carcamo had sped up to keep the other driver from passing, and provided expert testimony suggesting that he should not have been traveling in the center lane.

After trial had begun, Sugar Transport conceded its liability for any negligence ultimately attributed by the court to its employee. The employer argued that this admission must bar Diaz's negligent hiring claim because of a 1954 California Supreme Court case, Armenta v. Churchill, that removes from a case all issues of negligent entrustment if an employer has admitted liability for an employee's actions. The trial court disagreed, and the jury awarded Diaz over $22 million in damages, apportioned among the three defendants based on California's comparative fault law.

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, upheld the trial court's allowance of the negligent hiring and retention claim and the additional evidence that supported it. However, despite this, the California Supreme Court reversed, holding that Sugar Transport’s failure to invoke the Armenta rule before trial or move for separate trials did not cause it to forfeit its legal right to later assert that legal principle.

The court stated that an employer's admission of vicarious liability makes negligent entrustment claims "irrelevant" and "superfluous," and the trial court's allowance of evidence of Carcamo’s prior employment, driving record, dishonesty, and accident history had prejudiced the jury to the detriment of Sugar Transport. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for retrial.

Cases such as Diaz reveal the complicated legal concepts that can be involved in lawsuits involving catastrophic injuries. In this case, Sugar Transport will still be fully liable for its driver's share of the responsibility for the accident, but the Supreme Court's holding means that evidence that could inflame the jury, and impact the amount of damages it awards, will no longer be admissible at trial.

An injury lawyer's job is to provide aggressive advocacy for their client, which means winning on liability and obtaining maximum compensation. To accomplish this, the attorney must not only be able to identify and prove every conceivable reason why the trucking company or other defendants are liable, but also evaluate and prove the full spectrum of damages sustained by the injured victim due to the defendants' negligence.

Our Testimonials

We've Built a Reputation For Excellence - One Client at a Time
    "On My Side Every Step of the Way"
    Getting in a car crash is a nightmare. Drew and his team were helpful, honest, transparent, supportive, and on my side every step of the way. I can't emphasize enough how much of a difference they made.
    - Ramsay B.
    "A Five-Star Experience"
    Biren Law will do whatever it takes to help secure a favorable outcome on your case. Andrew frequently went above and beyond to not only help me understand the ins and outs of my case, but also to make sure we were making the right decisions.
    - Gregory W.
    "The Absolute Best"
    They have all been very professional, helpful, kind, and supportive. Andrew has been absolutely wonderful from the very start. He always keeps me up to date on the goings on of the case and always responds quickly when I have any questions.
    - Janine M.
    "Quick, Easy, and Smooth"
    Very professional environment, kept me informed on every detail, i never felt left in the dark. I am a combat vet and they were able to incorporate my veteran status into the case. I highly recommend using Biren Law group.
    - Josh H.
    "Truly Remarkable"
    The case ended being more difficult than anticipated, and I have to say, Andrew's handling of the case was truly remarkable. He was energetic, driven and handled our case with conviction. He and Biren's team in general were very helpful and quick to answer
    - Jean-Marie B.
    "My Case Was Handled Masterfully"
    My attorney was very patient, attentive, and thorough in addressing all of my concerns. Spencer explained the process in great detail and answered many questions I had. Despite the outbreak of COVID-19, my attorney continued to work diligently on my case a
    - Olesya M.


  • $104,000,000 Premises Liability Judgment
  • $12,000,000 Bad Faith Verdict
  • $4,300,000 Car Accident Verdict
  • $4,300,000 Wrongful Death Verdict
  • $4,000,000 Workplace Injury Settlement
  • $3,500,000 Motorcycle Accident Verdict
  • Top 10 Jury Verdicts | 2022
  • Super Lawyers
  • Super Lawyers Rising Stars
  • CAOC
  • AAJ
  • CAala
  • CA State Bar
  • Expertise
  • Lawyer Legion - Professional Involvement
  • Lawyer Legion - Community Leader
  • AV Preeminent Rated
  • Public Justice 2021 Member
  • Litigator Award 2015
  • Litigator Award 2014


  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.
  • By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request & other information using automated technology. Message frequency varies. Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to cancel. Acceptable Use Policy
  • We've Recovered Over Half a Billion Dollars for Our Clients
  • We Have Over 80 Years of Collective Legal Experience
  • You Can Get Started With a Free, No-Risk Consultation
  • You Don't Pay Us Anything Unless & Until We Win Your Case
  • We Have Been Named to Super Lawyers Every Year Since 2006
  • We Are Committed to Maximizing the Compensation You Deserve