Robertson v. LeMaster
301 S.E.2d 563 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has a duty to protect the public from the foreseeable harm of an employee driving home from work if the employer's affirmative conduct, such as requiring the employee to work for an unreasonably long time, has rendered the employee unfit to drive.
Facts:
- Tony K. LeMaster, an employee of Norfolk & Western Railway Company, was required to work at an emergency derailment site after his normal shift.
- The work involved continuous, heavy manual labor, and LeMaster worked for approximately 27 hours straight.
- During the extended shift, LeMaster repeatedly told his supervisors he was tired and wanted to go home, but his requests were denied.
- Eventually, LeMaster's supervisor, Rowe, permitted him to leave.
- A railway employee drove LeMaster to his personal car, which was located about 50 miles from his home; during this ride, LeMaster fell asleep with a lighted cigarette in his hand.
- The Railway did not offer LeMaster a place to rest or alternative transportation home, though it did so for other employees who worked the same shift.
- While driving home, LeMaster's car struck a vehicle occupied by Curtis and Karen Lee Robertson, causing an accident.
- LeMaster told a witness at the scene of the accident that he must have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis and Karen Lee Robertson filed a civil action against Tony K. LeMaster, his mother Arthonia, and Norfolk & Western Railway Company in the Circuit Court of Wayne County (a state trial court).
- The Robertsons' claim against the LeMasters was compromised and settled prior to trial.
- The action proceeded to a jury trial solely against Norfolk & Western Railway Company.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' (Robertsons') case, the trial court granted the defendant's (Railway's) motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the action.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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 have a legal duty to members of the public when it requires an employee to work for over 27 consecutive hours and then permits the exhausted employee to drive home, creating a foreseeable risk of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - McGraw, Chief Justice
Yes, an employer may have a legal duty to the public under these circumstances. The court's reasoning shifts from the traditional rule that an employer is not liable for an employee's actions outside the scope of employment. Instead, the court focuses on the employer's own affirmative conduct. The issue is not the Railway's failure to control LeMaster, but whether the Railway's own actions—forcing him to work for over 27 hours—created a foreseeable risk of harm to the public. Citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321, the court holds that one who engages in affirmative conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that harm. Because the Railway's actions created the hazardous condition (an exhausted driver on the road), it was foreseeable that an accident could occur, thus establishing a potential duty of care to the Robertsons. The court also reasoned that LeMaster's negligence was not necessarily an independent intervening cause that would absolve the employer, as his fatigue-induced negligence was a foreseeable consequence of the employer's conduct. Therefore, the questions of duty and proximate cause were issues for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the scope of employer liability beyond the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior. It establishes that an employer can be held liable for its own primary negligence when its affirmative actions create a foreseeable risk of harm to third parties, even if the harm occurs after the employee has left the worksite. The ruling shifts the focus from an employer's control over an employee to the foreseeability of harm created by the employer's own conduct. This precedent affects industries that require long working hours, potentially imposing a duty on employers to mitigate the risks of exhausted employees driving, such as by providing rest facilities or transportation.
Unlock the full brief for Robertson v. LeMaster