# Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy

> California Supreme Court · July 5, 2001 · 25 Cal. 4th 1235

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452362

## Case

- **Full name:** EVA CAMARGO, and v. TJAARDA DAIRY, and
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 5, 2001
- **Citations:** 25 Cal. 4th 1235; 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 617; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 6933; 25 P.3d 1096; 66 Cal. Comp. Cases 843; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5674; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 3799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Werdegar
- **Judges:** Brown, Werdegar
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452362

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “an employee of an independent contractor [is barred] from bringing a negligent hiring action against the hirer of the contractor”
- applying the peculiar risk analysis of Privette to section 410, negligent hiring, and holding hirer not liable for the negligent performance of a hired contractor for injuries to the contractor’s employees
- applying the peculiar risk analysis of Privette to section 410, negligent hiring, and holding hirer not hable for the negligent performance of a hired contractor for injuries to the contractor’s employees

## Opinion text

WERDEGAR, J.
I concur under the compulsion of Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ] (Toland). If, as the majority held in Toland , the hirer’s responsibility for its own negligence under the peculiar risk theory embodied in section 413 of the Restatement Second of Torts is deemed so “ ‘vicarious’ or ‘derivative’ ” (Toland, supra, at p. 265 ) that to recognize tort liability for the results of that negligence would be “unfair” (id. at p. 267), the same must be said of the hirer’s liability for its own negligence in choosing an unqualified contractor (Rest.2d Torts, § 411).
In a separate opinion in Toland , I took issue with the majority’s blanket approach, arguing that in some cases of peculiar risk negligence the hirer, rather than the contractor, will have the superior knowledge of, or ability to control, the circumstances creating a risk of injury, and that in those cases imposing tort liability on the hirer would be both fair and economically efficient despite the contractor’s limited liability under the workers’ compensation law. ( Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 271, 275-280 (conc. & dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) The same could be said of the negligent hiring theory *1246 raised in this case, but, in light of the majority’s adherence here to its Toland approach, the point is moot.
An odd aspect of the majority opinion here, as in Toland , is its partial reliance on very broad arguments that, if given their full logical scope, would seem to bar virtually all liability on the part of hirers for injuries to contractors’ employees, however direct and personal the hirer’s negligence, while the majority nonetheless disavows so general a scope for its holding. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 1244-1245 & fn. 2; Toland, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 281-282 (conc. & dis. opn. of Werdegar, J.).) Whether these arguments are merely makeweights, or are the majority’s true ground of decision, will, perhaps, be revealed when the court considers theories of hirer liability that cannot with any plausibility be deemed vicarious or derivative, such as those raised in the cases mentioned in footnote 2 of the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5452362. Public record. Not legal advice.