548 S.W.3d 323
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 23–24, 2013, Curtis Huenefeld, a Pit Stop Bar and Grill manager, drank while working, left the bar intoxicated, and a short distance away struck and killed pedestrian Lisa Higgenbotham. Huenefeld had $2,004 in cash in his truck at the time.
- Huenefeld pleaded guilty to first-degree involuntary manslaughter for the incident. He had a prior DWI conviction from 2006.
- Decedent’s daughter, Christy Higgenbotham, sued Pit Stop asserting (1) respondeat superior (vicarious liability) because Huenefeld was allegedly transporting Pit Stop’s cash to the bank when the crash occurred, and (2) negligent retention for keeping Huenefeld as manager despite his DWI history and allowing him free alcohol and authority to police his own drinking.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Pit Stop on both claims. Plaintiff appealed.
- The court reviewed summary judgment de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Higgenbotham and found genuine issues of material fact on both claims, reversing and remanding for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huenefeld was acting within the course and scope of employment (respondeat superior) because he was transporting Pit Stop's cash to the bank | Huenefeld was carrying $2,004 from Pit Stop and said he was taking it to the bank; co‑worker testified Huenefeld routinely took deposits, so the trip had a business purpose (dual‑purpose doctrine) | Pit Stop argued the affidavits/statements were inadmissible and that plaintiff failed to plead the dual‑purpose theory explicitly | Court held evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that Huenefeld was performing a business mission when the crash occurred; summary judgment on respondeat superior improper |
| Whether Pit Stop negligently retained Huenefeld by keeping him as manager despite his known/knowable DWI history and providing free alcohol | Pit Stop knew or should have known of Huenefeld's prior DWI; it put him in a position to supervise his own drinking and allowed free drinks, so retention proximately caused the death | Pit Stop contended lack of proof that it knew of the 2006 conviction, challenged admissibility, and argued lack of causal link to Decedent | Court held the record raised genuine issues whether Pit Stop knew or should have known of his dangerous proclivity and whether retention and provision of alcohol proximately caused the death; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. Hodapp, 919 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. banc 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid‑America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard; view evidence favorably to non‑movant)
- Cluck v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 367 S.W.3d 25 (Mo. banc 2012) (scope and course of employment test)
- Dibrill v. Normandy Assocs., Inc., 383 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (employer liability when act naturally arises from performance of work)
- Tuttle v. Muenks, 964 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (dual‑purpose doctrine for travel required by employment)
- Tran v. Dave's Elec. Co. Inc., 361 S.W.3d 417 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (going‑and‑coming rule and its rationale)
- Gaines v. Monsanto, 655 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. App. E.D. 1983) (negligent retention principles; foreseeability from position placed by employer)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (definition of negligence)
- Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. banc 1985) (prior inconsistent statements may be used as substantive evidence in civil trials)