Employee drove drunk — company still liable for accident?
February 6, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Best Practices, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Recent Decisions
Companies can often be held liable in court when employees cause accidents while “under the scope of employment” — but what does that really mean? In a recent case, a company was sued after an employee on call hit a car while driving drunk. Read the facts and decide: Who won?
The facts:
An employee, driving his own car, struck another vehicle and injured its driver. It turned out the employee was driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.24% — over the legal limit. He was also carrying a company-issued cell phone and pager, because he was on call at the time.
The injured driver sued the employer, claiming it was liable for the accident since the employee was working at the time.
The employer said:
There was no evidence that the employee was responding to a call or doing anything other than personal business at the time of the accident. Since he wasn’t engaged in company business, the company couldn’t be liable.
Who won the case?
Answer: The accident victim.
Why: A jury decided the man was acting in the scope of his employment – mainly because he was carrying the cell phone and pager. Also, the accident occurred near one of the locations the employee supervised, which was enough evidence for the jury that he was on his way to perform work for the company.
The final verdict: The company had to pay the victim $300,000 in damages.
The lesson: Many companies have gotten in trouble after employees cause accidents while operating company-owned equipment, including cars and cell phones. That’s one reason why establishing and enforcing a safe driving policy is a must for some employers.
Cite: de Jesus Uribe v. Aviles
Tags: accident, cell phone, driving, liability
February 11th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I am a little confused by this decision. An employee performs an illegal act while transiting to or from work, and the company is liable? There must be more to this, like the supervisor called the person in even though they knew this person was impaired.
From the bare facts of this article, it would appear that if an employee robbed a bank or raped someone on the way to or from work, the injured party could sue the employer? This has got to be wrong or the jury felt sorry for the victim and felt the company would be a nice source to tap for medical bills.
Although I agree it is a good idea to have a safe driving policy, there is no evidence this company did not have one. Further, if they did, I don’t think that would have changed a thing in this instance.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Mike, I agree. There’s some details missing from this article. I wonder if the employer now has a right to sue the employee for damages & loss of company property.
February 11th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Not really, bottom line is if you’re on call LAY OFF THE BOOZE.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I agree with you Mike. This sounds like a bogus decision on the jury’s part. And if I was the company; I would fire the employee for causing them to fork over 300K. Plus off; the employee made the decision to become inebriated; not the employer! Is there more to this story? I would definitely like to know!
February 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I am astonished that from the facts presented that the jury could conclude beyond a “reasonable doubt” that the accident happened within the scope of the person’s job. First, most companies have a policy against working while impaired. Typically, the no alcohol policy includes the period of time that a person is on call. So if he had been called in to work, he would not have met his duty to be available for work. Second, there was no information to indicate that while “on call” the employee had actually been called in. On call is a status that says you will make yourself available for work if needed. There were no facts presented (such as a call log) that the individual had been called in to work and/or if so called, that he was responding. Perhaps the worksite was between his home and the place that he acquired his alcohol – we don’t know.
From a different perspective, what if the employee had been injured in the accident as well. Would it have been considered a worker’s comp case? If so, then I would have to agree with the jury’s verdict.
February 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I’m a little bit disturbed by this court decision. I don’t know if there are other circumstantial evidence or testimonial evidences presented to court to convince the jury that the employee was on call at the time of the accident. If the jury based their findings to the facts that the employee was driving his OWN car and carrying a company cellphone and pager when the accident happened, that is absurd. There are just too many employees provided with company cellphone and pager and they carry those equipment with them and even using them on a weekend and out of office hours. Does this verdict implies that if the accident happens on a weekday and employee is carrying and even say using the company cellphone and pager at the time of the accident, the employer is already liable and can be sued?
February 12th, 2009 at 9:27 am
mike r: I agree. As I was reading the article I thought for certain the employee, not the employer, was at fault and would be liable for the accident. The employer is at fault because the employee had a cell phone and pager on hand and it occured near a location where the employee supervised? Did the employer supply the employee with alcohol? Sounds to me like we are missing part of the story or if not, the employee is very, very lucky.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Diana Wrote: “I am astonished that from the facts presented that the jury could conclude beyond a ‘reasonable doubt that the accident happened within the scope of the person’s job.”
While “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to criminal cases, in civil cases a lower level of certainty applies. That is why, for instance, OJ Simpson was found “not guilty” in his criminal murder trial, but found “liable” in the civil trial that followed.
In this case, they jury aperently decided that the presence of a company pager and cell phone, coupled with the employee’s proximity to a job site, was evidence of his “on the job” status. While I don’t agree with that, based on the limited information aailable here, that was their decision.
I hope the compkany appealed.