Behrens v. Harrah's Illinois Corp.
852 N.E.2d 553, 366 Ill.App.3d 1154, 304 Ill. Dec. 303 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not have a legal duty to ensure an employee is sufficiently rested to drive home safely, even if the employer's work requirements, such as mandatory overtime, caused the employee's fatigue.
Facts:
- Barbara Behrens was a salaried employee at Harrah’s Joliet Casino.
- Harrah's implemented a new policy requiring salaried employees in Behrens' department to work mandatory overtime to cover for absent staff.
- Pursuant to this policy, Behrens worked approximately 13, 13, and 12.5 hours on three consecutive workdays in October 1998.
- In the early morning of October 19, 1998, while driving home after her shift, Behrens became fatigued and fell asleep at the wheel.
- Her car drove into a ditch and crashed, resulting in catastrophic injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara and Kirk Behrens (plaintiffs) filed a negligence lawsuit against Harrah's Joliet Casino in the circuit court of La Salle County, a trial court.
- Harrah's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under section 2-615, arguing it failed to state a cause of action because it owed no legal duty to the Behrens.
- The circuit court granted Harrah's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice.
- The Behrens, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Harrah's as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer owe a duty of care to an employee to prevent injury by ensuring the employee is sufficiently rested to drive home safely after their work shift ends?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Schmidt
No, an employer does not owe a duty of care to an employee to ensure they are sufficiently rested to drive home safely after their shift. The court applied a four-factor duty analysis weighing: foreseeability of injury, likelihood of injury, the magnitude of the burden to guard against injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the defendant. While the injury might have been foreseeable, the court found this factor alone insufficient to create a duty. It held that the final two factors weighed heavily against imposing a duty, as the burden on employers to monitor fatigue would be 'enormous' and could lead to negative social policies. The court emphasized that individual employees are in the best position to assess their own fitness to drive and that an employer's control over the employee ceases once the workday has ended.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional 'coming and going' rule, which generally holds that an employer's duty of care does not extend to an employee's commute. By declining to create a new duty, the court places the onus of safety squarely on the employee to assess their own fitness to drive, even when that fatigue is a direct result of the employer's policies. This precedent makes it very difficult for employees in similar situations to sue their employers for negligence, prioritizing the avoidance of what the court saw as an unmanageable burden on businesses over compensating an employee for injuries sustained outside the scope of employment.
