DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,059 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 8 hours ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
Purton v. Marriott International Inc. (2013) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal Purton v. Marriott International Inc. Published Before: McINTYRE
Filed 7/31/13
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ALAN PURTON et al., D060475
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00099161- CU-PA-CTL) MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Reversed.
Mardirossian & Associates, Garo Mardirossian, Armen K. Akaragian;
Law Offices of Eran Lagstein, Eran Lagstein, Dimitrios N. Theofilopoulos; The Ehrlich
Law Firm and Jeffrey I. Ehrlich for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, Robert B. Ryder and Ravi Sudan for
Defendants and Respondents.
In this case, an employee consumed alcoholic beverages at an employer hosted
party and became intoxicated. The employee arrived home safely, but then left to drive a
coworker home. During that drive, the employee struck another car, killing its driver.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer on the ground the employer's
potential liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior ended when the employee
arrived home.
We hold that an employer may be found liable for its employee's torts as long as
the proximate cause of the injury (here, alcohol consumption) occurred within the scope
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
of employment. It is irrelevant that foreseeable effects of the employee's negligent
conduct (here, the car accident) occurred at a time the employee was no longer acting
within the scope of his or her employment. We also hold that no legal justification exists
for terminating the employer's liability as a matter of law simply because the employee
arrived home safely from the employer hosted party. Accordingly, we reverse the
judgment in favor of the employer.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott) employed Michael Landri as a
bartender at the Marriott Del Mar Hotel (the Hotel). Dennis Fraher was the Hotel general
manager and Joseph Emma was the assistant general manager. Emma was the second
highest ranking person at the Hotel from 2005 to 2009. Sarah Hanson was the
department head or general manager for the restaurant. Emma was Hanson's immediate
In December 2009, the Hotel held its annual holiday party as a "thank you" for its
employees and management. Marriott did not require that its employees attend the party.
Emma and Hanson decided that each party attendee would receive two drink tickets.
They planned to serve only beer and wine at the party.
Landri did not work on the day of the party. Before the party, Landri drank a beer
and a shot of "Jack Daniel's" whiskey at his home. Page Savicki drove Landri and three
other individuals to the party. They arrived at the party at about 6:15 p.m. Landri took a
flask to the party, which he estimated held about five ounces, filled to some degree with
Hanson was the only bartender at the party. At one point during the party, Hanson
had a bottle of Jack Daniel's from the Hotel's liquor supply brought to the bar. Landri
recalled filling his flask once during the party, but it might have been more. At about
9:00 p.m., Landri, Savicki and several other people left the party. Landri "believe[d]"
that Savicki drove home. Savicki and another person support this belief, while a fourth
person claimed that Landri drove. Landri did not consume any alcohol after leaving the
After about 20 minutes, Landri decided to drive home a coworker that had become
intoxicated at the party. While doing so, Landri struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared
Purton, killing Dr. Purton. Following the accident, Landri had a .16 blood alcohol level.
He pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol
and received a six-year prison sentence.
Plaintiffs, Dr. Purton's parents, filed this wrongful-death action against Landri,
Marriott and others. As relevant to the issue before us, Plaintiffs alleged that Marriott
held the party for its benefit, including to improve relations between employees, improve
relations between it and employees, and increase the continuity of employment by
providing a fringe benefit. As a bartender, Landri had an above average education
regarding the effects of drinking alcohol. Landri became extremely intoxicated at the
party. Although intoxicated, Landri was allowed to leave the Hotel and drive. Landri
arrived home and then decided to drive another person home. While still intoxicated and
driving over 100 miles per hour, Landri rear-ended Dr. Purton's vehicle.
Marriott moved for summary judgment on the ground it was not liable because the
accident did not occur within the scope of Landri's employment. The trial court granted
the motion, finding that at the time of the accident, Landri was not acting within the
scope of his employment. Plaintiffs timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review When a defendant moves for summary judgment, the defendant "bears the burden
of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that [the defendant] is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the defendant meets its initial burden, the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff to show that a triable issue of fact exists as to that cause of action. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) "We review the trial court's decision de novo, liberally
construing the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and
resolving doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party." (State of California v.
Allstate Ins. Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1008, 1017.)
II. Respondeat Superior Liability "Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously
liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment." (Mary M. v.
City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 208 (Mary M.).) Early authorities sought to
justify the respondeat superior doctrine on a number of theories, including control by the
employer of the employee. (Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 959
(Hinman).) The modern justification for respondeat superior is a deliberate policy
allocation of risk. (Ibid.)
Under the respondeat superior doctrine, the term "scope of employment" has been
interpreted broadly. (Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th
992, 1004 (Farmers).) " '[T]he employer's liability extends beyond his actual or possible
control of the employee to include risks inherent in or created by the enterprise.' " (Id. at
p. 1003, italics deleted.) " '[T]he fact that an employee is not engaged in the ultimate
object of his employment at the time of his wrongful act does not preclude attribution of
liability to an employer.' " (Id. at p. 1004.) Thus, an employer's vicarious liability may
extend to the employee's negligence, willful and malicious torts, or acts that contravene
an express company rule and confer no benefit to the employer. (Ibid.)
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the employee's tortious act was
committed within the scope of employment. (Mary M., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 209.)
"Ordinarily, the determination whether an employee has acted within the scope of
employment presents a question of fact; it becomes a question of law, however, when 'the
facts are undisputed and no conflicting inferences are possible.' " (Id. at p. 213.)
Significantly, the imposition of respondeat superior liability is not dependent on
the employer's undertaking any act or upon any fault by the employer. (Perez v. Van
Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, 967 (Perez).) Rather, an employer may be
vicariously liable for an employee's tort if the employee's act was an " 'outgrowth' " of his
employment, " ' "inherent in the working environment," ' " " ' "typical of or broadly
incidental to" ' " the employer's business, or, in a general way, foreseeable from the
employee's duties. (Lisa M. v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1995) 12
Cal.4th 291, 298–299.) Foreseeability in the context of respondeat superior liability must
be distinguished from foreseeability as a test for negligence. (Farmers, supra, 11 Cal.4th
at p. 1004.) " ' "[F]oreseeability" as a test for respondeat superior merely means that in
the context of the particular enterprise an employee's conduct is not so unusual or
startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other costs
of the employer's business.' " (Ibid., italics deleted.)
III. Analysis Marriott contends the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the
undisputed facts show that Landri was outside the scope of his employment when the
accident occurred and Landri's purpose for leaving his home was unrelated to his work.
Put simply, Marriott argues that any liability it faced under the respondeat superior
doctrine terminated as a matter of law when Landri arrived home safely after the party.
Plaintiffs assert the trial court improperly granted the motion because Landri's
intoxication arose within the scope of employment; accordingly, Marriott's respondeat
superior liability followed the risk created by the intoxication wherever it proximately
As we shall explain, the trial court improperly granted summary judgment because
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 Dr. Purton's death.
We begin by examining Landri's alleged negligent act, as we must first determine
this act before we can ascertain whether the act occurred within the scope of his
employment. Various jurisdictions have addressed this issue and two schools of thought
exist based on how the doctrine of respondeat superior liability has developed in that
particular jurisdiction. Under the first view, followed by Arizona, Illinois and Kansas,
the accident itself must occur at a time that the employee is acting within the scope of his
or her employment. (Bruce v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning (Ct.App. 1990) 166 Ariz.
221, 226; Holtz v. Amax Zinc Co. (1988) 165 Ill.App.3d 578, 583–584; Thies v. Cooper
(1988) 243 Kan. 149, 156.) Marriott advocates this view, focusing on whether Landri's
alleged tortious act of driving while intoxicated was within the scope of his employment.
Under the second view, followed by the Supreme Courts of Hawai'i, Oregon and
Washington, it is sufficient that the alcohol consumption occurred within the scope of
employment. (Wong-Leong v. Hawaiian Indep. Refinery (1994) 76 Hawai'i. 433, 441;
Chesterman v. Barmon (1988) 305 Or. 439, 443–444; Dickinson v. Edwards (1986) 105
Wash.2d 457, 468–469; see also Chastain v. Litton Systems, Inc. (4th Cir. 1982) 694 F.2d
957, 962.) The question presented is where California falls on this issue. In answering
this question, we do not write on a clean slate.
In McCarty v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 677 (McCarty),
our high court considered whether an employee's intoxication at an office party "arose in
the course of his employment" within the meaning of workers' compensation law. (Id. at
pp. 681–682.) It concluded that "[e]mployee social and recreational activity on the
company premises, endorsed with the express or implied permission of the employer,
falls within the course of employment if the 'activity was conceivably of some benefit to
the employer. . . .' [Citations, fn. omitted]" or otherwise was a "customary incident of the
employment relationship." (Ibid.) Although McCarty is a worker's compensation case,
our high court has considered worker's compensation cases to be helpful in determining
an employer's vicarious liability for its employee's torts because both fields of law allow
recovery for an injured party irrespective of proof of the employer's fault. (Perez, supra,
41 Cal.3d at pp. 967–968, fn 2.)
The McCarty court found that the employer's purchase of intoxicants for recurrent
gatherings on the premises demonstrated that it considered the gatherings to be company
activities that benefited the company by fostering company camaraderie and the
discussion of company business. (McCarty, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 682.) It concluded
that the employee's attendance at the party came within the scope of his employment
because it conceivably benefited the company (ibid.) and the record demonstrated that
these parties had become "a recognized, established, and encouraged custom." (Id. at
The McCarty court noted that the going and coming rule, which generally exempts
an employer from liability for tortious acts committed by employees while going to or
coming home from their workplace (Hinman, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 961), did not protect
the employer because the employee became intoxicated at his workplace "and this
intoxication proximately caused his death." (McCarty, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 681.) After
examining other cases, the McCarty court stated that "if the proximate cause is of
industrial origin, the time and place of injury or death even if foreign to the premises does
not serve to nullify recovery." (Id. at p. 681.)
Subsequently, the court in Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d
157 (Harris) held that plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts, which, if proved, would support
a jury's determination that an employee's intoxication occurred at a party, that the
employee's attendance at the party and intoxication occurred within the scope of his
employment and it was foreseeable the employee would attempt to drive home while still
intoxicated and might have an accident. (Id. at p. 165.) The Harris court disregarded
whether the employee's trip may have fallen within an exception to the going and coming
rule, stating that "the pivotal consideration was not whether an extra trip was required to
attend the banquet, but whether there was a sufficient business relationship between the
employment and the banquet at which the defendant became intoxicated to hold the
employer liable for the employee's negligent driving." (Ibid.)
In Childers v. Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 792
(Childers), the court held that an employer was liable for the actions of its off-duty
employees, when the employer provided alcohol and permitted the employees to drink at
the workplace after hours. (Id. at p. 806.) In doing so, the Childers court applied the test
set forth in McCarty, noting that the test "is properly applied where an employee
undertakes activities within his or her scope of employment that cause the employee to
become an instrumentality of danger to others even where the danger may manifest itself
at times and locations remote from the ordinary workplace." (Id. at pp. 805–806, italics
added.) In other words, "[s]o long as the risk is created within the scope of the
employee's employment, the scope of employment must follow the risk so long as it acts
proximately to cause injury." (Id. at p. 805.) As a hypothetical example, the Childers
court cited an employee manufacturing radioactive fuel that became contaminated on the
job and later contaminated nonemployees while playing basketball at a gym far from the
jobsite, causing them injury. (Ibid.) Because the employer created the risk of injury, the
Childers court concluded that it should bear the cost of the injury. (Ibid.)
Finally, the court in Bussard v. Minimed, Inc. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 798
(Bussard), held that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment for an
employer on a respondeat superior theory of liability where the employee suffered
pesticide exposure at work, to which she attributed illness and impaired driving that
contributed to an accident on her way home from work. (Id. at p. 806.) The court noted
that an employee's unfitness to drive after breathing lingering pesticide fumes for several
hours was not such a startling or unusual event so as to render the employee's car
accident unforeseeable. (Ibid.) Despite the fact that the accident occurred on the
employee's way home, "the going-and-coming rule was an analytical distraction" because
the "thrust of [plaintiff's] claim for vicarious liability was that [the employee] was an
'instrumentality of danger' because of what had happened to her at work." (Ibid.)
Thus, existing California case law clearly establishes that an employer may be
found liable for its employee's torts as long as the proximate cause of the injury occurred
within the scope of employment. It is irrelevant that foreseeable effects of the employee's
negligent conduct occurred at a time the employee was no longer acting within the scope
of his or her employment. Here, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a
finding that Landri breached a duty of due care owed to the public by becoming
intoxicated at the party.
Before the party, Landri consumed a beer and a shot of Jack Daniel's. Savicki
testified that she worked as a cocktail waitress, had taken a class on how to recognize
intoxicated patrons and that Landri showed no sign of being intoxicated when he left
home for the party. Landri drank alcohol at the Hotel until he left the party at about
9:00 p.m. He did not consume any alcohol after leaving the party.
A triable issue of fact exists regarding whether Landri appeared intoxicated after
the party. One person claimed that Landri's eyes were "fine" and that Landri was not
staggering or slurring his words when he left the party. Savicki initially stated that based
on her observations, Landri got "drunk" at the Hotel. However, she later claimed that she
"did not think that he was drunk." A police officer that spoke to Landri after the accident
noted that Landri smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech and had red, watery and droopy
eyes. A bystander that pulled Landri from his car after the accident also smelled alcohol
on him. On the way to the hospital, Landri spontaneously stated, " 'I'm a bartender and I
know I shouldn't have been driving.' "
We now apply the McCarty criteria to the facts to determine whether a reasonable
trier of fact could conclude that Landri was acting within the scope of his employment
when he became intoxicated at the party. Under McCarty, respondeat superior liability
attaches if the activities "that cause[d] the employee to become an instrumentality of
danger to others" were undertaken with the employer's permission and were of some
benefit to the employer or, in the absence of proof of benefit, the activities constituted a
customary incident of employment. (Childers, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 805.)
In this case, the evidence shows that the Hotel provided alcohol and permitted the
consumption of alcohol brought to the party by Landri. While Marriott initially planned
to serve only beer and wine at the party, Hanson served guests Jack Daniel's from the
Hotel's liquor stock and actually refilled Landri's flask from that bottle of Jack Daniel's.
Hanson also had a bottle of Frenet Branca under the bar from the Hotel's liquor room that
she shared with certain people. Emma saw Landri pouring from a flask and shared Jack
Daniel's with Landri shortly after Landri arrived at the party. Emma also shared a shot of
alcohol with another employee. Similarly, Hanson shared shots with Landri.
Additionally, the evidence shows that the party and drinking of alcoholic
beverages were not only of a conceivable benefit to Marriott, but were also a customary
incident to the employment relationship. Emma testified that Marriott held the party as a
"thank you" for its employees. Hanson similarly testified that the purpose of the party
was "[c]elebration, employee appreciation, holiday spirit, [and] team building." Thus, a
trier of fact could conclude that the party and drinking of alcoholic beverages benefitted
Marriott by improving employee morale and furthering employer-employee relations.
The evidence also supports a conclusion that the drinking of alcoholic beverages
by employees at Marriott was a customary incident to the employment relationship. In
general, the evidence suggests that Marriott impliedly permitted employees to consume
alcohol while on the job. Hanson stated that employees would finish alcohol left over
from parties after their shift, taste new drinks or have drinks purchased for them;
however, Emma or Fraher never commented when this happened. At the party,
employees had Marriott's express permission to consume beer and wine, with the
evidence suggesting that Marriott did not follow its plan to limit consumption of alcohol
to two drinks per person. Evidence that Marriott managers consumed hard alcohol with
employees at the party and that a Marriott manager served hard alcohol to employees
suggests that employees had Marriott's implied permission to consume hard alcohol at the
party. Hanson also testified that "historically there has been a lot of drinking and not a
lot of control at these types of [employee] parties."
Based on this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Landri was
acting within the scope of his employment while ingesting alcoholic beverages at the
To avoid this result, Marriott notes that McCarty, Harris, and Childers are all
factually distinguishable because, among other things, these cases involved employees
that got into accidents when the employee drove home from an employer sanctioned
event while intoxicated. Accordingly, Marriott argues that the going and coming rule
creates "bright line parameters" that bar its possible vicarious liability. We disagree.
The going and coming rule is a rule of nonliability to an employer for the
negligent acts of its employees while going and coming to work under the rationale that,
absent certain exceptions, an employee is not deemed to be acting within the scope of
employment while traveling to and from the workplace. (Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979)
25 Cal.3d 707, 722.) As we explained above, a trier of fact could conclude that the
proximate cause of the accident, Landri's intoxication, occurred within the scope of
Landri's employment. Because a jury could find the proximate cause of the accident
occurred at the party, before Landri even attempted to drive, the going and coming rule is
not implicated and amounts to an "analytical distraction." (Bussard, supra, 105
Cal.App.4th at p. 806.) Stated differently, we focus on the act on which vicarious
liability is based and not on when the act results in injury.
Assuming a trier of fact concludes that the proximate cause of the accident
occurred within the scope of employment, there is no reasonable justification for cutting
off an employer's potential liability as a matter of law simply because an employee
reaches home. As acknowledged by the McCarty, Childers and Bussard courts, the
employer's potential liability under these circumstances continues until the risk that was
created within the scope of the employee's employment dissipates. (McCarty, supra,
12 Cal.3d at p. 681 ["[I]f the proximate cause is of industrial origin, the time and place of
injury or death even if foreign to the premises does not serve to nullify recovery."];
Childers, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 805 ["[T]he scope of employment must follow the
risk so long as it acts proximately to cause injury."]; Bussard, supra, 105 Cal.App.4th at
p. 805 [When "imposing liability for an after-hours accident away from the jobsite,
liability follows the employee until the work-spawned risk dissipates."].)
Marriott complains that imposing liability under the facts of this case would not
prevent a recurrence of the tortious conduct because it had no right to control the purely
personal conduct of Landri after he safely reached home. It asserts that Plaintiffs are
asking the court to judicially legislate new law that any employee drinking alcohol at his
or her place of employment or employer's party must be escorted home and kept there by
such escort, in violation of his or her personal privacy and liberties. Not so.
Marriott's arguments are derivative of each other and 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. Marriott could have lessened this risk in numerous ways such as having a
policy prohibiting smuggled alcohol, enforcing its drink ticket policy, serving drinks for
only a limited time period and serving food. Alternatively, it could have eliminated the
risk by forbidding alcohol.
We concur with the observations of the Childers's court that alcohol abuse is
foreseeable and extremely dangerous and innocent people are injured or killed "as a
consequence of the negligence of those who have consumed alcohol at events that
otherwise benefit a commercial enterprise. . . . We think that if a commercial enterprise
chooses to allow its employees to consume alcoholic beverages for the benefit of the
enterprise, fairness requires that the enterprise should bear the burden of injuries
proximately caused by the employees' consumption." (Childers, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d
Notably, our conclusion that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of Marriott does not impose respondeat superior liability on Marriott, it merely
results in this question being resolved by the trier of fact. Necessarily, the trier of fact
will need to determine, based on the totality of the evidence presented, whether Landri's
act of leaving his home shortly after arriving from the party to drive a fellow employee to
that employee's home was " 'so unusual or startling' " so as to render the car accident
unforeseeable. (Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 968.)
Marriott cites two out-of-state cases, S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Altman (1987) 183
Ga.App. 611 and Mulvihill v. Union Oil Co. (Alaska 1993) 859 P.2d 1310 (Mulvihill), to
support its contention that respondeat superior liability ceases as soon as an intoxicated
employee arrives home. Georgia, however, follows the alternate view that the accident
itself must occur at a time that the employee is acting within the scope of his or her
employment. (Whelchel v. Laing Properties, Inc. (1989) 190 Ga.App. 182, 186–187.)
Our research shows that Alaska courts have not yet expressly addressed whether the
accident itself must occur at a time that the employee is acting within the scope of his or
her employment or whether it is sufficient to show that the risk of harm occurred within
the scope of employment. Nonetheless, the Mulvihill opinion and other Alaska opinions
suggest Alaska also follows the view that the accident itself must occur at a time that the
employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment. (Luth v. Rogers & Babler
Constr. Co. (Alaska 1973) 507 P.2d 761, 764, fn. 14 [following Restatement (Second) of
Agency, section 228 (1958) factor that conduct must occur within authorized time and
space limits]; Mulvihill, at pp. 1312–1313 [doctrine of respondeat superior liability does
not encompass employee's drive to see his fiancé]; Parnell v. Peak Oilfield Serv. Co.
(Alaska 2007) 174 P.3d 757, 769 [respondeat superior liability attached because
employee was acting within scope of employment when the accident occurred].)
Finally, we note that Plaintiffs' complaint contains allegations of direct negligence
by Marriott regarding how it hosted the party. Plaintiffs, however, appear to have
abandoned this theory in their opposition to the summary judgment motion. While it is
unclear whether Plaintiffs intend to pursue this theory on remand, it is appropriately
addressed below and we express no opinion on this theory of recovery.
In summary, the questions whether Landri committed a negligent act, and whether
that act was within the scope of his employment are for the trier of fact to decide. Based
on the evidence in the record, a trier of fact could conclude that Landri negligently
consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication while at the party. In assessing Landri's
negligence, the trier of fact could consider, among other things, the disputed evidence
regarding whether Landri drove home from the party and whether it was foreseeable he
might attempt to drive later in the evening while still intoxicated. Foreseeability means
that " 'in the context of the particular enterprise an employee's conduct is not so unusual
or startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other
costs of the employer's business.' " (Perez, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 968.) Assuming the
trier of fact found that Landri acted negligently, it could also conclude that Landri's
negligent act occurred within the scope of Landri's employment because the party and
drinking of alcoholic beverages were a conceivable benefit to Marriott or were a
customary incident to the employment relationship so as to render Landri's act of
drinking to be within the scope of his employment. Additionally, the ultimate question of
whether Landri's ingestion of alcohol at the party caused Plaintiffs' injury is for the trier
DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on appeal.
MCINTYRE, J.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J. AI-generated · verify before citing Holding. An employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's torts if the proximate cause of the injury—such as alcohol consumption—occurred within the scope of employment, even if the resulting accident occurs after the employee has left the workplace or arrived home. The court held that the 'going and coming' rule does not terminate employer liability as a matter of law simply because an employee arrives home safely from an employer-hosted event.
Issues
Whether an employer's respondeat superior liability for an employee's intoxication at a company party terminates as a matter of law when the employee arrives home safely. Whether an employer may be held liable for an employee's tortious conduct if the proximate cause of the injury occurred within the scope of employment, even if the injury itself occurred outside the scope of employment. Disposition. Reversed
“We hold that an employer may be found liable for its employee's torts as long as the proximate cause of the injury (here, alcohol consumption) occurred within the scope of employment.” “It is irrelevant that foreseeable effects of the employee's negligent conduct (here, the car accident) occurred at a time the employee was no longer acting within the scope of his or her employment.” “We also hold that no legal justification exists for terminating the employer's liability as a matter of law simply because the employee arrived home safely from the employer hosted party.”