negligent hiring doctrine (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

negligent hiring doctrine in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairygreen
cal · 2001 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2005
2 sentences

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

13
Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc.green
cal · 1998 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2005
2 sentences

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

12
Diaz v. Carcamogreen
cal · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
2 sentences

2021(Citing Diaz, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1157 ; see ibid. [negligent hiring and negligent entrustment “claims are functionally identical” in this context]; see also ibid. [referring to a single “claim against the employer—for negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention” (italics added)].) Negligent hiring in this context and negligent entrustment of a which Smoothreads sought summary adjudication of McKenna’s negligent entrustment cause of action was its contention that “[McKenna] [cannot] present any triable issue of fact to demonstrate the actual or constructive knowledge required to prevail on

2021(Citing Diaz, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 1157 ; see ibid. [negligent hiring and negligent entrustment “claims are functionally identical” in this context]; see also ibid. [referring to a single “claim against the employer—for negligent entrustment, hiring, or retention” (italics added)].) Negligent hiring in this context and negligent entrustment of a which Smoothreads sought summary adjudication of McKenna’s negligent entrustment cause of action was its contention that “[McKenna] [cannot] present any triable issue of fact to demonstrate the actual or constructive knowledge required to prevail on

11
Hooker v. Department of Transportationgreen
cal · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Privette v. Superior Court green
cal · 1993
2 sentences

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

2005Defendants point out that the hirer of the independent contractor is not vicariously liable under the peculiar risk doctrine for injuries sustained by employees of the contractor (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 , 698 et seq. [ 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 72 , 854 P.2d 721 ]; Toland v. Sunland Housing Group, Inc. *1303 (1998) 18 Cal.4th 253, 256-257 [ 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 878 , 955 P.2d 504 ]), and is not vicariously liable to the contractor’s employees under the negligent hiring doctrine (Camargo v. Tjaarda Dairy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1235, 1238 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 617 , 25 P.3d 1096 ]), and is only l

22002–2005
Underwriters Insurance v. Purdie green
calctapp · 1983
1 sentence

2026Co. v. Purdie (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 57, 69 ; Rest.2nd Agency, § 213.) 29 In the present case, the alleged negligence is more like that involved in a negligent hiring claim, because plaintiffs allege defendant was negligent in approving and supervising Mr. Martinez.

12026–2026
Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church green
calctapp · 1992
1 sentence

2015That is true even if the employer entrusted its vehicle to an employee whom it knew, or should have known, to be a habitually careless driver with a history of accidents.” (Diaz at pp. 1159–1160. [Fn. omitted.]) Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 828 discussed the concept in the case of a molestation claim against a church.

12015–2015
SeaRiver Maritime, Inc. v. Industrial Medical Services, Inc. green
cand · 1997
1 sentence

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Grahn v. Tosco Corp. green
calctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Willis E. Wilson, Rep., Estate of Tomikia Wilson v. Good Humor Corporation and David A. Williams green
cadc · 1985
1 sentence

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Holman v. State of California green
calctapp · 1975
2 sentences

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Risley v. Lenwell green
calctapp · 1954
1 sentence

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Risley v. Lenwell green
calctapp · 1954
1 sentence

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court green
calctapp · 1992
2 sentences

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000
Golden v. Conway green
calctapp · 1976
2 sentences

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

2000Negligent Hiring Under the negligent hiring exception to the general rule of nonliability, a hirer "who negligently fails to employ a competent and careful contractor may be liable for injuries caused by the contractor's failure to exercise due care. [Citations.]" ( Chevron v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 544, 549 , 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 674 ; Grahn v. Tosco Corp. (1997) 58 Cal. App.4th 1373, 1390 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 948, 956-957 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 69 ; Risley v. Lenwell (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 608, 622-625 , 277 P.2d 897 ; Holman v. State of California (1975

12000–2000

Where else courts name it

TX 38 (1994–2025) IL 19 (1993–2024) OH 17 (1991–2024) NY 13 (1998–2026) CA 7 (2000–2026) MD 6 (1987–2022) NC 5 (2004–2022) TN 5 (2000–2021) WY 5 (2001–2020) GA 5 (2005–2021) CT 4 (1988–1996) FL 4 (1987–2001) IA 4 (2018–2025) NJ 3 (2015–2022) OK 3 (2003–2022) IN 3 (1984–2025) KS 2 (1993–2010) MO 2 (2012–2024) CO 2 (1992–2009) NM 2 (2010–2012)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check