Purton v. Marriott International Inc.
218 Cal. App. 4th 499, 2013 WL 3942979, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 912 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be found vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's torts if the proximate cause of the injury, such as intoxication, occurred within the scope of employment, even if the foreseeable effects of that negligence manifest after the employee has left the workplace or arrived home.
Facts:
- Marriott International, Inc. employed Michael Landri as a bartender at the Marriott Del Mar Hotel.
- In December 2009, Marriott hosted its annual holiday party for employees as a 'thank you,' planning to serve only beer and wine and issue two drink tickets per attendee.
- Landri, not working that day, consumed a beer and a shot of Jack Daniel's whiskey at home before arriving at the party around 6:15 p.m. with a flask of Jack Daniel's.
- During the party, Marriott manager Sarah Hanson served Jack Daniel's from the Hotel's liquor supply and refilled Landri's flask; other Marriott managers, including Joseph Emma, also consumed hard alcohol with employees.
- Landri left the party around 9:00 p.m. and arrived home, having consumed no alcohol after departing the Hotel.
- Approximately 20 minutes after arriving home, Landri decided to drive an intoxicated coworker home.
- While driving, Landri struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton, killing him, and subsequently registered a .16 blood alcohol level.
- Landri later pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, Dr. Jared Purton's parents, filed a wrongful-death action against Landri, Marriott, and others in the Superior Court of San Diego County.
- Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the accident did not occur within the scope of Landri's employment.
- The trial court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment, finding that Landri was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
- Plaintiffs timely appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.
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 potential liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's intoxication, which occurred within the scope of employment, terminate as a matter of law when the employee arrives home safely before subsequently causing a foreseeable accident?
Opinions:
Majority - McIntyre, J.
No, an employer's potential liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior does not terminate as a matter of law simply because an employee arrives home safely if the proximate cause of the injury (intoxication) occurred within the scope of employment. The court held that California law aligns with the view that it is sufficient for the alcohol consumption, which proximately caused the injury, to have occurred within the scope of employment. Citing precedents like McCarty v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., the court noted that worker's compensation cases are helpful guides for vicarious liability, and McCarty established that an employee's intoxication at an employer-endorsed party that benefited the company could be within the course of employment, with liability extending if the 'proximate cause is of industrial origin.' The court further relied on Childers v. Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc., which stated that 'so long as the risk is created within the scope of the employee's employment, the scope of employment must follow the risk so long as it acts proximately to cause injury,' and Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., which held that 'liability follows the employee until the work-spawned risk dissipates.' The court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether Landri's intoxication at the party was within the scope of his employment, given that the party was a 'thank you' for employees, a 'celebration,' and for 'team building'—all conceivably benefiting Marriott. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that Marriott implicitly permitted the consumption of hard alcohol and that drinking was a customary incident of such employee parties. The court rejected Marriott's argument that the 'going and coming rule' created a 'bright line' termination of liability, deeming it an 'analytical distraction' when the dangerous instrumentality (intoxication) was created within employment. The court emphasized that there is no legal justification to cut off an employer's liability merely because the employee reached home if the work-spawned risk had not dissipated. It concluded that questions of Landri's negligence, whether his act of becoming intoxicated was within the scope of employment, and whether it proximately caused Dr. Purton's death, are for the trier of fact.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of respondeat superior liability for California employers, particularly in the context of employer-sponsored social events involving alcohol. By extending liability beyond the immediate 'going and coming rule' and an employee's safe arrival home, the decision reinforces the policy that enterprises creating risks should bear the associated costs. Employers may face increased responsibility for ensuring employee safety after company events where alcohol is served, potentially leading to stricter policies regarding alcohol consumption, employee transportation, or event supervision. This ruling underscores that the foreseeability of an employee's conduct for respondeat superior purposes is broadly construed, focusing on whether the conduct is 'not so unusual or startling' as to be unfair to attribute to the employer's business.
