Every year about this time we warn our readers to be very cautious about serving alcohol at company holiday parties. Employers can be liable for an employee’s drunk-driving accident, even if the accident occurs after the work function is over. Here is a reprint of a pertinent California case we discussed last year.
An employee, Michael Landri, made it home safely from an office holiday party but went out later that night and drove his vehicle while still intoxicated from the party. Unfortunately, the employee killed another driver in a high-speed crash. Purton v. Marriott nternational, Inc., (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 499.
In December 2009, Marriott Del Mar Hotel held its annual holiday party for employees and management as a “thank you” for their work. The party was held at the hotel. Marriott planned to serve only beer and wine and to provide two drink tickets to party attendees. Attendance at the party was voluntary. Even though only beer and wine were supposed to be served, the general manager for the restaurant was bartending the party and had a bottle of whiskey brought to the bar from the hotel’s liquor supply. The general manager filled Landri’s flask with whiskey on at least one occasion (maybe more), shared shots with him and served whiskey to other guests.
The manager also shared another bottle of hard alcohol with guests. She testified that “historically there has been a lot of drinking and not a lot of control at these types of [employee] parties.” In addition, the assistant general manager of the hotel (the second-highest-ranking hotel employee) saw Landri using the flask and shared shots of alcohol with him and another employee.
Landri left the party with some coworkers and testified that he “believed” he didn’t drive home, and that his coworker drove him. He did not drink any more after leaving the hotel party. After being home for about 20 minutes, Landri decided to drive a drunk coworker home. While doing so, he rearended a car at more than 100 miles per hour, killing the driver of the other car.
Landri’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was 0.16. Landri pled guilty to gross vehicle manslaughter while under the influence and received a six-year prison sentence.
The parents of the deceased driver sued Landri and Marriott for wrongful death. Marriott argued that it could not be liable for Landri’s actions because he was engaged in purely personal conduct when he left home after first arriving there safely. Marriott also argued that Landri’s travel was unrelated to work. Generally, employers are not liable for the wrongful acts of employees that occur outside of the employment relationship.
The court disagreed because the consumption of alcohol that eventually led to the accident was employment related, and the intoxication itself occurred during the scope of the employment. The court ruled that an employer can be liable if the activities that caused the employee to harm others were either:
- Undertaken with the employer’s permission and were of some benefit to the employer; or
- A customary incident of employment.
The court found that this was the case. According to the court, Marriott could not “ignore the fact that it created the risk of harm at its party by allowing an employee to consume alcohol to the point of intoxication.” Liability, according to the court, continues until
the risk that was created within the scope of employment “dissipates.” In other words, in the case of alcohol consumption related to work, the employer is potentially on the hook until the employee sobers up.
Employers should consider whether they should serve alcohol at company functions given the risk of liability. Alcohol can create other problems at office parties, such as unprofessional conduct or sexually harassing behavior. As the court noted, the only way to completely eliminate the risk of harm to others and the risk of potential liability is to forbid alcohol at company functions entirely.
If alcohol is served, several measures should be in place to lessen the risk. The court also offered suggestions for lessening the risk of liability for those companies that still choose to serve alcohol:
- Create and enforce a policy that prohibits employees from sneaking alcohol into a party
- Enforce a drink ticket policy
- Serve drinks for a limited time period
- Serve food
Other suggestions to limit risk include:
- Providing designated drivers or cab fare
- Holding the event off-site and using experienced bartenders
- Making sure that there are non-drinking individuals monitoring the situation
- Close the bar well before the event ends
- Reminding employees of company expectations
As always, the ultimate decision is in your hands.
The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.
Leave a Reply