Summary Of Carcamo Legal Analysis

1002 Words 5 Pages
DIAZ V. CARCAMO LEGAL ANALYSIS
In a company an employee represents the business and if there is an incident that occurs on the job the company or organization is liable for whatever that occurs. In this paper, we will discuss an issue that transpired between Sugar Transport of Northwest, LLC and a driver for the organization name Jose Carcamo. We discuss the liabilities that the company will be liable due to the employee’s actions. We also will talk about the type of principles-agency relationships, recommend the course of action and the responsibility of the organization that hired the employee. Principle-Agency Relationships
A principle-agency relationship is when a company hires an individual to perform job duties on behalf of the organization.
…show more content…
One of such condition is that of an archaic term called master-servant relationship (Ward & Filatotchev, 2009). In the case of Sutton v. Chevron Oil Company 1974, it was held that the defendant: Chevron was liable for the actions of their employee in causing death to the plaintiff’s wife. The decision was arrived at under the theory of strict liability for the protection of the consumers of the services offered by Chevron Oil Company form any harm or injury and in worst cases death. Sugar Transport Company had taken a background test from Carcamo’s driving recording and found nothing that made him unfit for the position to employ him. Unfortunately, because of the accident that made him negligent Carcamo had to be terminated due to him being liable and this is the action that was made by Sugar Transport Company to terminate his …show more content…
Negligent retention relates to the responsibility of the employer towards breaching their duty on being aware of an employee’s incompetence of level of unfitness to execute their employment duties (Twomey, 2007). Negligent retention is when the employer has not taken the necessary steps or corrective ways to fully coach, remove from the duties, or do a complete termination of their job duties due to the case of incompetence.
The Sugar Transport Company is liable for the actions and decisions by Carcamo in the course of him behind the wheel driving for their company. In the case of White v Consolidate Planning Incorporation 2005, it was held that the employer was negligent in the retention of an unscrupulous employee. The defendant’s employee misappropriated customer funds and was sued for negligent hiring and negligent retention. The plaintiff’s case provided enough evidence to plead a case, where the defendant did not obtain to get a background check on the employee before started a contract with him for a

Related Documents