139 Conn. App. 722
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Cannizzaro injured in an automobile crash with Marinyak; Marinyak was an employee of Mayo, a homeowner in Redding, during renovations at Mayo’s premises.
- Marinyak had been consuming alcohol on Mayo’s premises for about 1.5 years prior to the accident and left the site shortly before the crash.
- State police determined Marinyak was intoxicated with a 0.19 BAC at the time of the crash.
- Cannizzaro filed a six-count amended complaint; counts 4–6 asserted negligent supervision and negligent/reckless service of alcohol by Mayo.
- The trial court granted Mayo summary judgment on counts 4–6, and Cannizzaro appealed, challenging Mayo’s duty of care under §317 Restatement (Second) of Torts.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed, holding Mayo did not owe a duty to Cannizzaro for off-premises, off-duty conduct by Marinyak.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer owes duty for off-premises intoxicated employee’s conduct | Cannizzaro argues Mayo negligently supervised alcohol use. | Mayo contends no duty unless the employee’s tortious act occurs on premises or with employer’s chattel. | No duty; off-premises conduct not within §317 |
| Whether constructive knowledge of alcohol use creates a duty | Evidence showed Mayo had constructive knowledge of alcohol consumption by employees. | Constructive knowledge does not create a duty to prevent off-premises harm. | Constructive knowledge exists but does not create duty to prevent off-premises harm |
| Impact of Seguro v. Cummiskey on duty analysis | Seguro supports a duty to supervise bartenders serving alcohol. | Seguro is limited to places where serving alcohol is part of regular business; not controlling off-site intoxication. | Seguro not controlling; court follows Murdock’s framework and declines broader duty |
| Whether Restatement (Third) §41 should be adopted | Restatement Third suggests broader employer duty in special relationships. | Connecticut precedent binds us to Restatement Second; adoption not warranted. | Not adopted; existing Restatement Second framework governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Murdock v. Croughwell, 268 Conn. 559 (Conn. 2004) (establishes §317 duty limits for off-premises conduct; treats as exception to general rule of no duty to control third parties)
- Seguro v. Cummiskey, 82 Conn. App. 186 (Conn. App. 2004) (limits §317 duty to establishments serving alcohol; on-site supervision duty context)
- Doe v. Federal Express Corp., 571 F. Sup. 2d 330 (D. Conn. 2008) (federal court applying §317; employer not liable for off-premises intoxicated employee)
- Biel v. Alcott, 876 P.2d 60 (Colo. App. 1993) (employer no duty to supervise off-duty employee absent on-premises/control of chattel)
- Tallariti v. Kildare, 63 Wn. App. 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (employee drinking after work; employer owes no duty for off-premises crash)
- Killian v. Caza Drilling, Inc., 131 P.3d 975 (Wyo. 2006) (§317 duty depends on premises or chattel use; off-premises crash not actionable)