Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.
1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 510, 133 Or.App. 514, 892 P.2d 703 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has a duty to avoid conduct that unreasonably creates a foreseeable risk of harm to third parties, which may include liability for injuries caused by an employee driving home from work if the employer scheduled the employee for hours that it knew or should have known would cause fatigue and impair their ability to drive safely.
Facts:
- Matt Theurer, an 18-year-old high school senior, worked part-time at one of defendant McDonald's fast food restaurants.
- McDonald's had policies to prevent employee fatigue, such as not scheduling students for late shifts more than once a week, because it knew employees could become tired.
- McDonald's was aware that at least two of its employees had previously been in car accidents as a result of falling asleep while driving home after working late shifts.
- Due to a staffing shortage, a manager asked for a volunteer to work a special cleanup shift from midnight to 5 a.m.; Theurer offered to take the shift.
- The manager knew Theurer drove approximately 20 miles to and from work.
- Theurer worked three shifts over a 17-hour period: a regular shift from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., the special cleanup shift from midnight to 5:00 a.m., and an additional shift from 5:00 a.m. to 8:21 a.m.
- During his final shift, Theurer told his manager he was tired and asked to be excused from his next regularly scheduled shift.
- Shortly after leaving work, Theurer fell asleep while driving home, crossed the center line, and crashed head-on into a van driven by plaintiff, causing severe injuries to plaintiff and killing Theurer.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff settled his potential claims against the representatives of Matt Theurer's estate.
- Plaintiff filed a negligence action against defendant McDonald's in the state trial court.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiff's injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of its actions; the trial court denied the motion.
- Defendant filed an affirmative defense alleging that its fault should be compared with Theurer's; the trial court granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss this defense.
- At trial, after plaintiff presented his case, defendant moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- Defendant appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 have a duty of reasonable care to third parties for injuries caused by an off-duty employee, when the employer required or permitted the employee to work hours that it knew or should have known would cause fatigue and impair the employee's ability to drive home safely?
Opinions:
Majority - Landau, J.
Yes, an employer's liability for harm resulting from its conduct depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff. Under the principles of Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, an employer's duty is not automatically limited by the employer-employee relationship or by the fact that the injury occurred off-premises. The court found there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that McDonald's knew or should have known that working Theurer for so many consecutive hours would impair his ability to drive home safely. This foreseeability was supported by evidence of McDonald's own policies designed to prevent fatigue, its knowledge of prior, similar accidents involving its employees, and Theurer's visible fatigue on the morning of the accident. The court rejected McDonald's arguments that its duty was limited by the Restatement (Second) of Torts or preempted by state labor laws, holding it to the general standard of care to avoid creating unreasonable, foreseeable risks.
Dissenting - Edmonds, J.
No, an employer should not be held liable for an adult employee's off-premises negligence when the employee voluntarily chooses to work overtime. The majority's holding creates an unprecedented and expansive new rule of liability for all Oregon employers based merely on 'general foreseeability.' Theurer was an adult who volunteered for the shift and assured his manager he could handle it. The employer's conduct was not 'unreasonable' as a matter of law, because it had no right to control Theurer's actions after he left work. Imposing liability here inappropriately makes employers responsible for anticipating their employees' off-duty activities and physical state, which is a public policy decision that should be left to the legislature, not the courts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the Oregon Supreme Court's foreseeability-based negligence standard from Fazzolari to the employer-employee context, specifically concerning employee fatigue. It establishes that an employer's duty of care can extend beyond the workplace and work hours if its on-premises conduct (e.g., scheduling decisions) creates a foreseeable risk of off-premises harm to the public. The ruling diminishes the traditional view that an employer's liability for an employee's actions ends when the employee is no longer acting within the scope of employment. This case sets a precedent for holding employers accountable for the consequences of overworking employees, potentially impacting scheduling practices in industries that rely on long or irregular hours.
