218 Cal. App. 4th 499
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Marriott hosted an optional employee holiday party at which alcohol (including hard liquor) was served; managers participated and refilled employees' drinks.
- Bartender Michael Landri attended, drank both before and during the party (including whiskey from the hotel supply and from his flask), and left the party around 9:00 p.m.
- After arriving home, Landri later drove a coworker and, while intoxicated (BAC .16), collided with and killed Dr. Jared Purton; Landri later pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter.
- Purton’s parents sued Landri and Marriott alleging respondeat superior and negligence in hosting the party; Marriott moved for summary judgment arguing vicarious liability ended when Landri left the workplace and arrived home.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Marriott; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding triable issues exist whether the proximate cause (intoxication at the employer event) occurred within the scope of employment and whether that risk proximately caused the death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer can be vicariously liable when employee’s intoxication at an employer event proximately causes a later off-premises accident | Landri’s intoxication occurred within scope of employment because the party was employer-sponsored and benefited Marriott; liability follows the risk created at the event | Employer’s vicarious liability ends when the employee leaves workplace/arrives home; accident occurred outside scope of employment | Reversed summary judgment — triable issues exist; if intoxication (the proximate cause) occurred within scope, respondeat superior can attach even though accident occurred later off-premises |
| Whether the going-and-coming rule bars vicarious liability here | McCarty/related authority: proximate industrial origin of risk can extend liability beyond time/place of injury | Marriott: going-and-coming creates bright-line nonliability once employee leaves | Going-and-coming rule is not dispositive where the employer-created risk proximately causes harm; it is an "analytical distraction" if proximate cause arose at work |
| Whether the question is one of law or fact for trial | Plaintiffs: factual dispute exists about whether Landri became intoxicated at work and foreseeability of later driving | Marriott: undisputed facts show Landri was off-duty and the later driving was personal, so liability ends as a matter of law | Court: issues of negligence, scope, and foreseeability present triable factual questions for the jury |
| Whether employer’s control/policy arguments absolve it | Plaintiffs: employer created and tolerated drinking culture and could have limited risk; employer need not be at fault for vicarious liability to apply | Marriott: it could not control employee’s purely personal conduct after reaching home; imposes impractical duties if liable | Court: employer’s creation of the risk at its event permits vicarious liability to follow the risk until it dissipates; control is not required for respondeat superior |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarty v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 12 Cal.3d 677 (1974) (employer‑sponsored social activity that conceivably benefits employer can arise in course of employment; industrial origin of risk can extend liability beyond premises)
- Childers v. Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc., 190 Cal.App.3d 792 (1987) (employer liable where workplace alcohol created an "instrumentality of danger" whose effects could manifest offsite)
- Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 105 Cal.App.4th 798 (2003) (employer-created work risk that impairs employee and contributes to off-hours accident can sustain respondeat superior; going-and-coming rule not determinative)
- Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc., 41 Cal.3d 962 (1986) (vicarious liability does not depend on employer fault; foreseeability in respondeat superior means conduct is not so unusual that the loss should not be borne by employer)
- Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, 54 Cal.3d 202 (1991) (scope of employment for respondeat superior is broadly construed; usually a factual question)