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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more