 |
 
 |
 
|
 |
|
Employer Liability for Employee Driving Accidents
by Jeffrey J. Mirman
Two recent Connecticut Court decisions have dealt with the vicarious liability of employers whose employees get into accidents while driving automobiles. There is both good news and bad news.
First the bad news. A Superior Court judge has determined that a Company which sends an employee to a training seminar may be held responsible for an accident caused by the employee when driving home while intoxicated after the employee had a few drinks in the bar with other employees following the seminar. The Court concluded that a jury could find that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, even though he was driving home at the time of the accident, and even though he had engaged in excessive drinking after the seminar was over.
The general rule is that when an employee is on his way to work or on his way home from work he is on his own time, and cannot be said to be acting within the scope of his employment if he gets into an accident during one of these trips. However, courts throughout the country, including Connecticut, are carving out exceptions to this rule when an employee negligently consumes too much alcohol at a Company-sponsored event or party and then causes an accident after leaving the event or party. Under these circumstances, Courts have concluded that the Company should be held responsible for the negligent acts of its employees while driving under the influence. The Courts have reasoned that the party or event was of benefit to the Company, because the attendance of the employees was either impliedly or expressly required, or because these events boost morale and foster communications between coworkers. A Company which provides alcohol at such events is presumed to believe that the alcohol in some way contributes to the success of the event or the purpose for which the Company brought the employees together. Accordingly, the Courts are imposing liability upon companies on the theory that the Company is in a position to control employees' consumption of alcohol, or to control the activities of its employees, and to give greater assurance of compensation to victims, and to impose the risk of such accidents upon those, including the Company, who derive benefit from the event which gave rise to the injury.
A purely social function, such as where a group of employees decides to meet after hours or on the weekend, is likely to be treated differently from a Company-sponsored event, such as a Christmas party, or summer outing, or an event where employees are expected to mingle with customers. In short, it appears that an employer may be held responsible for accidents caused by employees driving under the influence following any event where alcohol is served, and where the Company knows or has reason to expect that alcohol will be served.
In the example which opened our discussion, the training seminar was given at a hotel which commonly hosts such seminars. After the seminar was over, a group of employees decided to have some drinks in the bar. Because the Company knew, or should have known, that employees might drink following the seminar, and because the Company derived some benefit from this activity, in terms of an increase in morale, and because the Company did not prohibit this activity, the Court concluded that the Company, and not the innocent victim, should assume the risk.
A Company may, of course, establish a rule which prohibits employees from consuming alcohol at Company-sponsored events or after such training seminars. If you do permit the consumption of alcohol, know that there are risks involved.
Now the good news for employers. If the employee who had a few drinks after the training seminar caused a motor vehicle accident to a fellow employee, the fellow employee could not sue the Company. A recent decision of the Appellate Court of Connecticut has upheld the motion that an employee hurt by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a fellow employee while on the job may not sue his employer for the fellow employee's negligence. The employee may collect worker's compensation benefits, but he may not bring a separate claim for negligence. In this case, the legislature has determined to restrict the employee's right to recover. Unlike the situation described above, where an employee hurts a non-employee, when an employee is injured the Company does not have any vicarious liability.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
