Is employer liable for fatal accident caused by employee intoxicated at company party?
Issue:

Your employer, a hotel, hosts a summer party each year as a thank-you to employees and management. The party is intended for celebration, employee appreciation, and team building. While the original plan for this year’s party was to serve only beer and wine and to limit drinks to two per person, the manager of the hotel’s restaurant ended up sharing the hotel’s liquor supply and doing shots with employees. Michael, an employee who became heavily intoxicated from the shots (as well as the contents of a flask that he had brought), arrived home safely after the party but then got into a fatal accident 20 minutes later when he was driving a coworker home. Can the employer be held liable for the fatality cause by the drunken employee?
Answer:    

Yes, in a case with similar facts, a California appeals court held that an employer was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the actions of an employee who killed another driver in a car accident after getting drunk at the company’s party. The fact that the employee made a stop home safely before getting in his car again to drive a coworker home did not absolve the employer of liability. So long as the proximate cause of the injury (alcohol consumption) occurred within the scope of employment, the “coming and going rule” was no exception to employer liability.

Yes, in a case with similar facts, a California appeals court held that an employer was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the actions of an employee who killed another driver in a car accident after getting drunk at the company’s party. The fact that the employee made a stop home safely before getting in his car again to drive a coworker home did not absolve the employer of liability. So long as the proximate cause of the injury (alcohol consumption) occurred within the scope of employment, the “coming and going rule” was no exception to employer liability.

Reducing the risk. The employer could have reduced its risk by having a policy prohibiting smuggled alcohol; enforcing its drink limit policy; serving drinks for only a limited time period; and serving food. Alternatively, the employer could have eliminated the risk by forbidding alcohol altogether.

Source: Purton v. Marriott International, Inc. (CalCtApp 2013) No. D060475.
[ Return to top of document ]