The Marriott company holiday party in Del Mar, California in December 2009 was like many other company parties.  The party was held at the Del Mar Marriott hotel and all employees were welcome, but attendance was clearly voluntary.

Marriott intended to serve only beer and wine, and each attendee was given two drink tickets so as to limit the amount of alcohol any one person drank.  However, the general manager for the restaurant, who was bartending the holiday party, brought a bottle of whiskey to the party.  An employee by the name of Michael Landri, a bartender at the Marriott, drank shots of whiskey and his flask was filled with whiskey on at least one occasion during the course of the party.

Landri left the party with co-workers, and does not remember if he drove home.  Once home, he did not drink anymore.  After about 20 minutes at home, Landri decided to drive a drunken co-worker home.  On that trip, he sped at more than 100 miles per hour and ran into another car, killing the driver.  It was determined that Landri’s blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was .16.

Landri pled guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence and received a six-year prison term.  On the civil front, the family of the driver brought a lawsuit in the California trial court against Landri and the Marriott for wrongful death (Purton v. Marriott International, Inc.).  On July 31, 2013, the appellate court in the Purton case issued a surprising and expansive ruling on Marriot’s potential liability. 

Was Marriott Liable?

Under the basic rule of “respondeat superior,” an employer may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.  At first blush, it would appear that Landri was not acting in the scope of employment when he became inebriated at the holiday party, for the following reasons:

• Attendance at the party was voluntary.
• The party was not “work.”
• Even if the party was considered within the scope of employment, once Landri was home, he was no longer within that scope of employment.
• Landri’s subsequent travel was unrelated to work.

On appeal from a dismissal of the case, the appellate court reviewed the broad interpretation of “respondeat superior” and pointed out that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's tort if the employee's act was almost in any way an outgrowth of his or her employment, or incident to the employee’s business, or, in a general way, foreseeable from the employee's duties.  The court said, “Foreseeability in the context of respondeat superior liability must be distinguished from foreseeability as a test for negligence.”

Marriott argued that Landri acted outside the scope of employment when he left his home after the party. The trip that was related to the accident had no relation to work.

But the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court, holding that a “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 which resulted in [the victim’s] death.”   The court opined that the party itself was work-related, since the company derived the benefit of increased employee morale.  Thus, the critical question was whether the company created the risk of harm by allowing an employee to become intoxicated at the party—which was within the scope of employment—and which led to the later accident, even though the accident occurred outside the scope of employment.

This holding expands prior law on the scope of respondent superior.  Employers should take special notice that they may need to alter their practices to prevent liability for employees’ torts. 

Your Company Holiday Party

Holiday parties do improve employee morale, but are fraught with dangers.  Employees may dress provocatively and flirt with one another; alcohol loosens inhibitions and can lead to inappropriate sexual or harassing conduct.  But what the Marriott case demonstrates is much more serious.  A drunk employee can drive drunk, causing injury or death to others, for which the employer may be liable. 

Here are some suggestions for minimizing risks of liability related to holiday parties:

• Provide attendees with tickets to obtain drinks at the party.
• Designate drivers and provide taxi rides home.
• Have someone watching out for those using others’ drink tickets, or those becoming inebriated.
• Be sure to serve food at the party.
• Cut off drinks after a certain hour.
• Use experienced bartenders and/or hold the event off site.
• Have a festive luncheon instead of an evening party.
• Limit or do not serve alcohol at the luncheon.

While the risk of inebriated employees cannot be completely eliminated, these suggestions may help reduce the risk while still affording companies a way to maintain holiday party traditions.