Login


Notice: Passwords are now case-sensitive

Remember Me
Register a new account
Forgot your password?
Case Name Diaz v. Carcamo
Date 06/23/2011
Note The Supreme Court of California clarified what type of claims a plaintiff may pursue when that plaintiff has been injured by someone driving a car in the course of employment.
Citation S181627
WCC Citation WCC 37772011 CA
DIAZ v. CARCAMO DAWN RENAE DIAZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE CARCAMO et al. , Defendants and Appellants. But another driver, who was the only nonparty witness to the collision between Carcamo and Tagliaferri, testified that Carcamo had not accelerated. The jury found that defendants Tagliaferri and Carcamo had driven negligently, that defendant Sugar Transport had been negligent in hiring and retaining Carcamo as a driver, and that the retention was a cause of plaintiff's injuries. Accordingly, had the trial court not made the errors noted above, it is reasonably probable that the jury would have reached a result more favorable to both Carcamo and Sugar Transport on the question of whether Carcamo drove negligently. Second, both Carcamo and the only nonparty witness to the accident testified that Tagliaferri pulled into Carcamo's lane without signaling, and that Carcamo never changed speed.

Download full case here.