Skip to main content

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

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more