Harris et al. v. Trojan Fireworks Company
120 Cal.App.3d 157 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tortious acts of an employee committed while driving home from a company-sponsored event, if the event and the employee's intoxication occurred within the course and scope of employment.
Facts:
- On December 21, 1979, Trojan Fireworks Company (Trojan) held a Christmas party for its employees at its manufacturing plant.
- The party occurred during work hours, from noon until 4 p.m., and employees were paid to attend.
- Trojan furnished large quantities of alcoholic beverages at the party.
- Anthony Barajas, an employee of Trojan, attended the party and became intoxicated to the extent that his ability to drive was substantially impaired.
- After the party, Barajas attempted to drive his car home.
- While driving home, Barajas was involved in a car accident with a vehicle driven by James Harris.
- The accident resulted in the death of James Harris and serious injuries to two minor children, Dawn and Steven Griffin, who were passengers in Harris's car.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of James Harris and guardians of the injured children (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Trojan Fireworks Company (defendant) in a California trial court.
- Trojan filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained Trojan's demurrer.
- The plaintiffs were given 30 days to amend their complaint but chose not to.
- The trial court then entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the California Court of Appeal (the intermediate appellate court).
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 the doctrine of respondeat superior apply to hold an employer liable for an employee's drunk driving accident that occurs after the employee became intoxicated at a company-sponsored party held on the employer's premises during work hours?
Opinions:
Majority - Garst, J.
Yes, the doctrine of respondeat superior may apply. An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's torts if the employee's conduct occurred within the scope of employment, which includes situations where an employer-sponsored activity creates a foreseeable risk of harm. The court reasoned that the traditional 'going and coming' rule, which generally shields employers from liability for employees commuting to and from work, is subject to numerous exceptions. Drawing a parallel to workers' compensation law, the court held that the key considerations are whether a nexus exists between the employment and the activity causing harm, and whether the harm was foreseeable. Here, the party was for the employer's benefit (improving morale), held on company premises during work hours, and the employer furnished the alcohol. Therefore, a jury could reasonably find that Barajas's intoxication occurred within the scope of his employment, making the subsequent accident a foreseeable risk fairly attributable to the business enterprise.
Concurring - Garst, J.
Yes, but for an additional reason. The complaint also states a cause of action against the employer for its own negligence in furnishing an excessive amount of alcohol to Barajas. Although California statutes (Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602) grant civil immunity to those who furnish alcohol, this author argues those statutes are unconstitutional. The immunity violates the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions by creating a favored class of alcohol suppliers and a disfavored class of their victims. This statutory immunity is not rationally related to the state's goal of promoting highway safety; to the contrary, it removes a powerful incentive for suppliers to act responsibly, thereby undermining public safety.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of employer liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior by extending it to an employee's conduct after a company-sponsored social event. By linking the tort law concept of 'scope of employment' with the workers' compensation analysis of 'arising out of employment,' the court emphasized a policy of risk allocation, placing the foreseeable costs of business activities on the employer. This case establishes a precedent that makes it more difficult for employers to disclaim responsibility for accidents that originate from company functions, even if the accident occurs off-premises and after normal work hours. Consequently, it imposes a greater duty on employers to manage the risks, particularly those involving alcohol, associated with their social events.
