Fairbanks v. JB McLoughlin Co., Inc.
929 P.2d 433 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer hosting a work-related party where alcohol is served may be held vicariously liable for an employee's drunk driving accident, and for negligent furnishing of alcohol, if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employee became intoxicated at the event and if the employer furnished alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, precluding summary judgment.
Facts:
- Ann Neely, a J.B. McLoughlin property manager, attended the 1990 company Christmas banquet, where McLoughlin provided food, wine, and champagne.
- Neely testified she arrived at the party around 7:00 p.m. and left between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., claiming she only drank two glasses of champagne and did not become intoxicated.
- Around 10:50 p.m., Neely's car hit Carolee Fairbanks' car from the rear at a stoplight, injuring Fairbanks.
- Shortly after 11:00 p.m., Officer David Asheim observed Neely with alcohol on her breath, slurred speech, stumbling, and staggering; she admitted to two glasses of wine at a company party.
- About an hour after the accident, a breathalyzer test showed Neely's blood-alcohol level at .17.
- After Fairbanks sued McLoughlin, Neely stated for the first time that she had met other employees for two or three cognacs at the Empress of China lounge after the banquet, leaving around 10:45 p.m.
- The owner of the Empress of China, Judy Lan, testified that the lounge closed at 10:00 p.m. that night, rarely had many customers, and her records showed only $150 in bar receipts for the entire day.
- McLoughlin employees who attended the banquet declared that they did not observe Neely acting intoxicated or smelling of alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene and Carolee Fairbanks (Petitioners) sued J.B. McLoughlin Company, Inc. (Respondents), alleging negligent furnishing of alcohol and vicarious liability.
- Fairbanks amended her complaint to include the Empress of China as an additional defendant, which was later settled.
- The trial court (court of first instance) granted McLoughlin's motion for summary judgment on both of Fairbanks' theories of liability.
- Fairbanks (Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal in an unpublished opinion.
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 evidence, including conflicting testimony about an employee's post-party activities and observations of intoxication shortly after leaving an employer-hosted banquet, create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment on claims of vicarious liability and negligent furnishing of alcohol against the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, the evidence, including conflicting testimony about an employee's post-party activities and observations of intoxication shortly after leaving an employer-hosted banquet, creates a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment on claims of vicarious liability and negligent furnishing of alcohol against the employer. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the summary judgment dismissal, finding that Fairbanks presented sufficient evidence to create a factual dispute regarding whether Ann Neely became intoxicated at the McLoughlin banquet. For vicarious liability, the court applied the Dickinson v. Edwards test, noting McLoughlin conceded three of the four elements, leaving only whether Neely consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication at the banquet. The court found that Judy Lan's testimony that the Empress of China closed at 10:00 p.m., combined with the tight timeline of Neely's claimed activities and the low bar receipts, was sufficient to raise an issue as to whether Neely could have had additional drinks there as she claimed. This created a reasonable inference that Neely might have been lying, and if she didn't stop there, she must have become intoxicated at the banquet. The court emphasized that it is not the court's function on summary judgment to resolve factual issues or credibility disputes. For the negligent furnishing claim, which requires showing the defendant furnished alcohol to an "obviously intoxicated" person, the court noted that Officer Asheim's and Fairbanks' observations of Neely's obvious intoxication shortly after leaving the banquet, combined with the possibility that she did not consume alcohol elsewhere, were sufficient to raise a factual issue regarding her state at the banquet. The court reiterated that all facts and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Fairbanks) when reviewing summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for granting summary judgment in Washington, particularly when issues of credibility and reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence are present. It clarifies that a plaintiff can survive summary judgment in employer liability cases stemming from employee intoxication if they present evidence challenging the employee's alternative explanations for intoxication, thereby creating a question of fact for the jury. The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in summary judgment proceedings as determining if genuine disputes exist, rather than resolving them.
