Fruit v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
502 P.2d 133 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the enterprise theory of liability, an employer may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of an employee when those acts are so connected to the employment as to justify requiring the employer to bear the loss. An employee's travel to and from social activities may be within the scope of employment if the employee is attending a mandatory company event where such socializing is an encouraged and integral part of the business purpose.
Facts:
- Equitable Life Assurance Society (Equitable) held a mandatory, three-day sales convention for its employees, including Clay Fruit, at a resort in Land's End, near Homer, Alaska.
- Equitable encouraged employees to use their own transportation, for which they would be reimbursed, and Fruit drove his own car.
- The convention's agenda included business meetings, dinners, and cocktail parties, and employees were encouraged to socialize with out-of-state guests to learn sales techniques.
- On the second evening of the convention, Fruit decided to drive to the Waterfront Bar and Restaurant in Homer, about five miles away, under the impression that the out-of-state guests were there and he wished to socialize with them.
- After arriving at the bar and discovering that none of his colleagues were present, Fruit immediately began driving back toward the convention headquarters at Land's End.
- At approximately 2:00 a.m. during his return trip, Fruit's vehicle skidded across the highway and collided with John Schreiner, who was standing in front of his disabled automobile.
- As a result of the collision, Schreiner was crushed and suffered severe, permanent injuries, including the amputation of his left leg.
Procedural Posture:
- John Schreiner sued Clay Fruit and his employer, Equitable Life Assurance Society, in trial court for damages.
- A jury returned a verdict finding that Fruit was negligent, that he was acting within the scope of his employment, that Equitable was directly negligent, and that Schreiner was not contributorily negligent.
- The jury awarded Schreiner $635,000 in damages against both defendants.
- Both Fruit and Equitable filed motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions.
- Both Fruit (appellant) and Equitable (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of their motions to the Supreme Court of Alaska, with Schreiner 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's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior extend to an employee's negligent act committed while traveling back to a mandatory company convention headquarters from an off-site social gathering that was motivated by a business purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Boochever
Yes. An employer’s vicarious liability extends to an employee’s negligent acts committed while traveling back to a mandatory company convention from a social gathering when that gathering is sufficiently connected with the employer's enterprise. The court adopted the 'enterprise liability' theory of respondeat superior, which states that the costs of inevitable losses to third persons incident to an enterprise should be distributed among those who benefit from it. The critical test is not whether the employer controlled the employee's actions, but whether the employee's acts were 'so connected to his employment as to justify requiring that the employer bear that loss.' Here, Fruit was required to attend the convention, and socializing was an encouraged part of the business function. His trip to Homer was motivated, at least in part, by the business purpose of networking with colleagues. Therefore, his travel was not a 'frolic of his own' but was sufficiently related to the enterprise to bring his actions within the scope of employment, making Equitable vicariously liable for his negligence. The court, however, reversed the jury's finding of Equitable's direct negligence, holding that merely creating an environment with alcohol is insufficient to establish causation for direct liability.
Analysis:
This case signifies a notable adoption of the modern 'enterprise liability' or 'risk distribution' theory of respondeat superior, moving away from the stricter, traditional 'control' test. By expanding the 'scope of employment' to include social activities incidental to a mandatory business function, the decision broadens the potential for employer liability. The ruling establishes that even off-site and after-hours conduct can be work-related if it is motivated by a business purpose and encouraged by the employer. This precedent impacts how businesses manage company-sponsored events and business travel, as it holds them responsible for foreseeable risks arising from such activities, even without direct control over the employee's specific actions.
Unlock the full brief for Fruit v. Equitable Life Assurance Society