Employees' Alcohol Consumption At a Holiday Party: Potential Respondeat Superior Exposure for Employers

Purton v. Marriott International, Inc. - Fourth District Court of Appeal, CA

Facts:  An employee of defendant consumed alcoholic beverages before and during an annual holiday party hosted by defendant.  The employee consumed hard liquor, some of which was provided by the bartender at the holiday party.  After the party was over, the employee left (a dispute exists as to whether the employee drove home with others or was only a passenger in the car).  After arriving safely at home, the employee decided to drive a coworker home that had become too intoxicated.  In doing so, the employee struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton and killed him.  Plaintiff's parents brought suit against defendant and others.  The basis of this case centers on the claim that defendant was liable for the death, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was not liable as the accident did not occur within the scope of the employee's employment.  The trial court granted the motion on the grounds that at the time of the accident, the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment.

Holding:  Without ruling on whether defendant was liable under a theory of respondeat superior, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court's granting of summary judgment was not proper.  The Court held that a trier of fact could find that the employee acted negligently by becoming intoxicated at the holiday party, that the act was within the scope of his employment, and proximately resulted in the car accident that caused Dr. Purton's death, sufficient to hold defendant liable under respondeat superior.

Under respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.  California law broadly interprets "scope of employment" to make an employer liable for risks inherent in or created by the enterprise.  The Court noted that under respondeat superior, the employee's attendance at defendant's holiday party and the subsequent intoxication occurred within the scope of his employment.  Defendant provided alcohol and permitted the consumption of it at the party, including allowing the bartender to refill the employee's flask with hard liquor.  Defendant also allowed its employees to finish off alcohol left over from parties after their shift, taste new drinks while on the job, and had a history of allowing a lot of drinking, with limited control, at employee parties in the past.  Based upon this evidence, the Court noted that a trier of fact could conclude that the party and drinking of alcoholic beverages benefited defendant by improving employee morale and furthering employer-employee relations.

While the Court recognized that some caselaw muddied the waters, California law established that an employer may be liable for its employee's torts as long as the proximate cause of the injury occurred within the scope of employment.  The Court held that an employer's liability continues until the risk that was created within the scope of the employee's employment dissipates.  Consequently, the scope of employment must follow the risk so long as it acts proximately to cause injury.

Judgment:  The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's granting of summary judgment on the grounds that any dispute over the Defendant's liability was an issue to be determined by the trier of fact.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge McIntyre

Date:  July 31, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0813//D060475