Hayes v. Far West Services, Inc.
50 Wash. App. 505, 749 P.2d 178 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intentional tort, even if the employee became intoxicated while acting within the scope of employment, unless the resulting tortious act was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that intoxication.
Facts:
- Thomas McGrath, a partner at a law firm, went to a restaurant/cocktail establishment at approximately 4:30 p.m. on February 11, 1980.
- Until about 11:00 p.m., McGrath consumed alcohol while conducting business for his firm, including meeting a potential client and discussing a case settlement with opposing counsel.
- McGrath's firm encouraged such promotional activities and later reimbursed him for expenses incurred during these business discussions.
- After 11:00 p.m., McGrath continued to socialize and drink at the establishment.
- At approximately 1:45 a.m., after a verbal exchange with another patron, Frederick Hayes, McGrath encountered Hayes outside and shot him.
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick Hayes and Judy Frounfelter brought a suit for damages against Thomas McGrath and his law firm in a trial court.
- The law firm filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the law firm's motion, dismissing it as a defendant in the case.
- Hayes (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of the law firm to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 make a law firm liable for an employee's intentional shooting of a third party, when the employee became intoxicated while conducting business for the firm, but the shooting itself was not a foreseeable consequence of the intoxication?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
No. Respondeat superior does not make a law firm liable for an employee's intentional tort under these circumstances because, unlike drunk driving, a shooting is not a reasonably foreseeable result of an employee's on-the-job intoxication. The court acknowledged that while there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find McGrath was acting within the scope of his employment when he was drinking, liability cannot attach because his consumption of alcohol was not negligent. Negligence requires a foreseeable risk of harm. In prior cases involving drunk driving, it was foreseeable that an employee who drove to a work function and became intoxicated would need to drive home, creating a known risk. Here, there was no evidence to suggest that McGrath's drinking would foreseeably lead to a violent altercation and a shooting; the record did not show the location was prone to violence or that McGrath had a history of becoming violent when intoxicated. Therefore, because the specific harm was not foreseeable, the employer is not liable.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the expansion of respondeat superior liability for employers whose employees consume alcohol during work-related activities. It distinguishes the highly foreseeable risk of automobile accidents from drunk driving from other, less foreseeable torts. The ruling establishes that for liability to attach, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the specific type of harm that occurred was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the employee's on-the-job intoxication. This prevents employers from becoming strict insurers for any and all wrongful acts committed by an employee who had been drinking in connection with their work.
