Last week, the California Supreme Court reversed a 22.5 million dollar judgment against a defendant company for the negligent driving of their employee. In that case, the plaintiff, Dawn Renae Diaz, suffered severe, permanent injuries when an out of control vehicle (driven by Karen Tagliaferri) flew over the center line of the roadway and crashed into plaintiff's car coming the opposite direction. It was contended that Tagliaferri had been in somewhat of a "road rage" incident with the driver of the company truck, Jose Carcamo. Diaz argued that Carcamo was negligent in that he caused or contributed to the Tagliaferri vehicle going out of control, by speeding, not checking his mirrors and/or by being in the wrong lane of travel. The plaintiff further argued that Carcamo's employer, Sugar Transport of the Northwest, was negligent in their hiring and retention of Carcamo. As proof of this point, Diaz offered evidence of Carcamo's questionable employment history and record of poor driving and accidents, even though Sugar Transport conceded at trial they would be vicariously liable for Carcamo's negligence, if any. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the evidence of poor driving and unrelated employment issues were essentially irrelevant because Sugar Transport had accepted responsibility for Carcamo's driving at the time of the accident. The Court went on to hold that the evidence of Carcamo's prior accidents and other misconduct likely influenced the jury's decision.
In essence, the Supreme Court apparently felt it was unfair for the Plaintiff in the Diaz case to introduce evidence of Carcamo's and Sugar Transport's prior bad acts under the guise of proving a claim for negligent hiring and retention. The evidence relative to the accident reportedly showed Tagliaferri was speeding when she changed lanes and clipped the front of the Sugar Transport truck, causing her to lose control. The only theory against Carcamo/Sugar Transport in causing the accident was seemingly weak. That theory, according to the Court, was unfairly propped up by the offering of very damaging facts relative to Carcamo's accident history and immigration status. In California, pursuant to Evidence Code § 1101, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion. It appears the Supreme Court was of the impression the Plaintiff in the case above had essentially circumvented this rule by alleging and proving an unnecessary theory against Sugar Transport, in light of their willingness to accept responsibility for their employee.
Compensation for the victims of motor vehicle accidents caused by negligent driving or even road rage should be an important concern for all Californians. When a driver negligently or recklessly operates their vehicle, they should be held accountable for the injuries, damages and devastation they leave behind. An Orange County injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type. He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.
Have you or a family been injured in an automobile accident caused by a negligent or reckless driver?
In essence, the Supreme Court apparently felt it was unfair for the Plaintiff in the Diaz case to introduce evidence of Carcamo's and Sugar Transport's prior bad acts under the guise of proving a claim for negligent hiring and retention. The evidence relative to the accident reportedly showed Tagliaferri was speeding when she changed lanes and clipped the front of the Sugar Transport truck, causing her to lose control. The only theory against Carcamo/Sugar Transport in causing the accident was seemingly weak. That theory, according to the Court, was unfairly propped up by the offering of very damaging facts relative to Carcamo's accident history and immigration status. In California, pursuant to Evidence Code § 1101, evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character (whether in the form of an opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct) is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a specified occasion. It appears the Supreme Court was of the impression the Plaintiff in the case above had essentially circumvented this rule by alleging and proving an unnecessary theory against Sugar Transport, in light of their willingness to accept responsibility for their employee.
Compensation for the victims of motor vehicle accidents caused by negligent driving or even road rage should be an important concern for all Californians. When a driver negligently or recklessly operates their vehicle, they should be held accountable for the injuries, damages and devastation they leave behind. An Orange County injury attorney with experience at handling such cases can make a fair assessment of these claims. Mr. Ralph has more than 20 years of experience handling personal injury cases, including just this type. He can be reached at 714-919-4415 for a FREE CONSULTATION.
Have you or a family been injured in an automobile accident caused by a negligent or reckless driver?
- Nothing in this post is intended to suggest the Law Offices of Paul W. Ralph currently represents anyone involved in the news story above. This posting should not be construed as legal advice or an opinion on the merit of any particular matter. A consultation is the best way to obtain an assessment of your potential case.
No comments:
Post a Comment