About That Office Party

  
In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal held that an employer can be held liable for injuries from a car accident caused by a drunk employee who consumed alcohol at an office holiday party.  As a result, many employers will have to reconsider the wisdom of serving alcohol at company sponsored events.  

In December 2009, the Marriott Del Mar Hotel held its annual holiday party for employees and management. Employees were not required to attend the party. Before the party, Joseph Emma, the hotel's assistant general manager, and Sarah Hanson, the department head or general manager of the restaurant, decided that they would only serve beer and wine and each person attending the party would receive two drink tickets.

Bartender Michael Landri did not work on the day of the party.  Before the party, Landri drank a beer and a shot of whiskey at his home.  Page Savicki drove Landri and his flask of whiskey to the party.

Sarah Hanson served as the bartender at the party.   During the party, Hanson had a bottle of whiskey from the hotel's liquor supply brought to the bar.   Landri refilled his flask at least once.  After approximately, three hours Savicki, Landri and other people left the party.  There is some dispute about whether Savicki or Landri was driving the car.  Landri did not consume any alcohol after leaving the hotel.  

Approximately 20 minutes after arriving to his home, Landri decided to drive home a coworker that had become intoxicated at the party.  During the drive, Landri struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton, killing Dr. Purton. Shortly after the accident, Landri had a .16 blood alcohol level.  Landri pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol and received a six-year prison sentence.

Dr. Purton's parents filed a wrongful death claim against Landri, Marriott and several others.  Marriott contended that it was not liable because the accident did not occur within the scope of Landri's employment.  The trial court granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal, however, reversed the trial court decision holding that at reasonable trier of fact could find that Landri acted negligently by becoming intoxicated at the party, that this act was within the scope of his employment and proximately caused the car accident that resulted in Dr. Purton's death.  

The Court stated that under California law an employer may be liable for an employee's torts as long as the proximate cause of the injury occurred within the scope of employment.  The court stated that it is irrelevant that the foreseeable effects of the employee's negligent conduct occurred at a time when the employee was no longer acting within the scope of his or her employment because there was sufficient evidence that Landri breached a duty of care by becoming intoxicated at the party.  

The Court also found that Landri was acting within the scope of his employment when he became intoxicated at the party because the party and the drinking of alcohol beverages were a conceivable benefit to Marriott and a customary incident to the employment relationship.  The hotel's assistant manager testified that the hotel held the party as a thank-you for its employees.  Another purpose of the party was "celebration, employee appreciation, holiday spirit and team building."  The evidence also suggested that Marriott impliedly permitted employees to consume alcohol on the job.  

Although Marriott contended that it should not be potentially liable because the accident occurred after Landri had reached his home, the Court rejected this argument stating that if a trier of fact concludes that the proximate cause of the accident occurred within the scope of employment, there is no reasonable justification for cutting off an employer's potential liability simply because an employee reaches home.  The court further stated that Marriott could have lessened the risk of harm by having a policy prohibiting smuggled alcohol, enforcing its drink ticket policy, serving drinks for a limited time period and serving food or forbidding alcohol.  

The court stated that a trier of fact should determine whether Landri's act of leaving him home shortly after arriving from a party to drive a fellow employee home was so unusual or startling so as to render the car accident unforeseeable.  

Employers should examine their past policies regarding alcohol at office parties to determine whether such policies need to be modified to minimize the risk of liability for accidents caused by employees after the parties.  The opinion suggested options to reduce such risk, including eliminating alcohol at all office parties.