Yes, the company is responsible. When the boss told the drunk employee to leave, the company wasn't just doing nothing; it was taking an action that put a dangerous driver on the road. Because the company took control of the situation, it had a duty to be careful. They should have considered safer options, like calling the employee's wife, getting him a cab, or using the company's nurse's station.

No, the company is not responsible. An employer doesn't have the right to control an employee once they are off the clock and off company property. Matheson was an adult who chose to get drunk and drive; the company didn't cause the danger. Forcing the company to be responsible puts it in an impossible situation: either get sued by a third party for letting the employee leave, or get sued by the employee for false imprisonment for not letting him leave.

Yes, the law says Otis had a duty here because when a company controls an unfit employee, it must act carefully like a reasonable company would to keep the employee from putting others at big risk. This is based on balancing things like how likely and bad the harm could be versus how hard it is for the company to prevent it.

No, Otis didn't have a duty to control a drunk worker when he was off the clock. The court is wrong to create this new duty - it doesn't fit with our laws. Otis didn't cause Matheson to be drunk and shouldn't be blamed for what he did on his own time, off company property. The court should show restraint and say Otis had no legal duty to control Matheson.

Yes. When an employer exercises control over an incapacitated employee, it assumes a duty to act reasonably to prevent that employee from causing harm to others. The court reasoned that Otis's conduct was not mere nonfeasance (a failure to act), but an affirmative act of sending an obviously intoxicated employee out onto the highway. The court determined that foreseeability of harm, combined with this affirmative act of control, created a legal duty. The decision weighed the risk and likelihood of injury against the burden on the employer, concluding that changing social standards justify imposing a duty on employers to act reasonably in such situations, analogizing it to the duty one assumes when taking charge of a person known to be dangerous under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319.

No. An employer has no legal duty to control the conduct of an intoxicated, off-duty employee who is not on the employer's premises or using the employer's property. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly confuses the existence of a duty, which is a question of law for the court, with the breach of a duty. It contends that Otis did not create the dangerous situation, as Matheson became intoxicated of his own accord. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that Otis did not 'take charge' of Matheson in a way that would trigger a duty under the Restatement. Imposing such a duty, the dissent warns, places employers in a 'Hobson's choice' between potential liability for false imprisonment if they restrain an employee and liability to third parties if they do not.

Yes. The law imposes a duty on Otis under the evidence as developed because when, because of an employee's incapacity, an employer exercises control over the employee, the employer has a duty to take such action as a reasonably prudent employer under the same or similar circumstances would take to prevent the employee from causing an unreasonable risk of harm to others. This duty is based on weighing factors such as the risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury against the social utility of the actor's conduct, the magnitude of the burden of guarding against the injury, and the consequences of placing that burden on the employer.

No. Otis did not owe a duty to control the conduct of an intoxicated, off-duty employee. The majority's decision to impose such a duty is unsupported by statute or precedent and extends liability beyond reasonable bounds. Otis did not contribute to Matheson's state of intoxication and should not be held liable for his off-duty, off-premises torts. Proper judicial restraint compels the conclusion that, as a matter of law, Otis owed no duty to control Matheson's conduct.

Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot