Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Walnut Creek
North San Diego
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 2033 N. Main St. Suite 600, Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 8950 South 52nd St Suite 201, Tempe AZ 85284
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1999 Broadway, Suite 3250, Denver, Colorado 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #220 Encinitas, CA 92024
(949) 221-1000 (949) 221-1001 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2000 Dallas, Texas 75201

John O’Meara Reveals “Skeletons in the Closet”

John O’Meara Reveals “Skeletons in the Closet”

CRST, INC. Superior Court

(2017) 11 Cal. App. 5th 1255

Hiring quality employees can be challenging; despite a company’s best efforts, bad apples slip into the system. And on occasion, one of those employees can have an at-fault accident which results in litigation against the employee for negligence, as well as, against the company for negligent hiring, entrustment or supervision.

In the past, the remedy was simple.  If an employer stipulates to vicarious liability for the acts of the employee, the direct causes of action against the employer vanish. Case closed and problem solved. All those skeletons in the closet of the at-fault employee became irrelevant and largely inadmissible at the time of trial, along with the evidence regarding the alleged negligent hiring, training or supervision of that employee.

That has now changed. Pursuant to the recent case of CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court, when an employer gets sued for negligent hiring or negligent entrustment, stipulating to vicarious liability is no longer a bar to an employer being hit with punitive damages.

Cue the skeletons. Not only is all the bad behavior of the at-fault employee taken into account, but the employer’s alleged negligent hiring, training or supervision now have relevance.  Now the finger pointing begins.  The employee says that he or she was not trained or supervised, and the employer says that it had no idea that the employee had a checkered past.

What does this mean?

  • Employee’s bad facts (drinking, criminal record, falling asleep at the wheel, etc.) now have relevance and are admissible at trial, as do the hiring, training and supervision methods of the employer;
  • More conflicts of interest will arise between the employee and employer in discovery and at trial.

To discuss the implications of this decision or learn more information on how our firm can represent you in a similar case, please contact John O’Meara at (818) 712-9800, or send an email to

Leave a Reply