The civil laws have provisions to give remedy for a party that suffers a breach of a protected interest. Essentially, under the tort laws, an employer has some responsibilities towards their employees such that they can be liable for some of their mistakes when exposed to danger. There are national laws, company rules, and other regulations that aid in deciding whether an employer in a specific scenario should be responsible for the damages incurred by the worker. In addition, the judiciary has a list of past cases pertaining to the same issue that can be used as a benchmark to understand the potential court ruling. In the current case, T.O. Retailers, LLC has its policy on alcohol consumption with orders for strict enforcement. However, they host a party outside the work vicinity, and one of their employees drinks excessively and is later involved in a road accident. Although the employer has some implications in the case for hosting the party and understanding Diane’s health condition, they should not be held liable for her accident.
Several factors in the case may support the rationale for the employer being liable for the injuries sustained by Diane and the driver. The employer host theory asserts that the employer is guilty if they furnish and control drinks that lead to intoxication (Brennan & Carol, 2021). The T.O. Retailers, LLC was the host of the annual party and even supplied the alcohol that the employees were consuming. Moreover, the serving was done by the workers and not hired attendants, which implies that the employer was indirectly responsible for managing consumption. The other idea that morally implicates the company is the fact that they were aware that Diane has vertigo and was unaccompanied by a spouse, like some of her colleagues. Moreover, even the management saw that Diane was visibly intoxicated and did not attempt to restrain her. The driver sustained injuries, possibly due to the symptoms of vertigo presenting in Diane’s intoxicated state.
There is other evidence from the case that shows T.O. Retailers, LLC is not liable for the injuries that Diane and her driver sustained after the accident. The company had clearly stated that it does not condone drunk driving and strictly restricts employees from intoxication after parties it hosts. The company policy can be used in the court, as in the case of Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., where the company was cleared of any liability from the handbook policy (Brennan & Carol, 2021). In addition, the party was held outside the company venue and beyond the working hours, and facility staff refused to serve Diane additional drinks. The implication is that it was not an official duty, and employees had a choice of not attending. The fact that Diane came unaccompanied by a spouse does not shift responsibilities to the employer because she is an adult with autonomy to make decisions. As implied by Eisenstadt (2019), a manager has no legal obligation to be a big brother all the time and especially beyond official hours. The driver is not an employee of T.O. Retailers, LLC; hence, the company has no liability.
The respondent superior doctrine states that a party should be responsible for the actions of its agents. In these cases, the implication is that the employer is responsible for the actions of their staff. Particularly, T.O. Retailers, LLC should account for Diane’s co-worker who took another drink on her behalf even though she was intoxicated, and the teams were no longer serving her. Despite the facts, the company is still innocent under the doctrine because the accident did not take place within Diane’s scope of employment. She was traveling from the party venue to her home beyond the working hours and with no official duty. A contrary opinion can be that the accident resulted from a vicarious event that started at a point where the respondeat superior applies (Harris, 2021). Specifically, the company sponsored the party, and an employee colleague gave Diane the drink even when she had enough. However, the argument that all the activities were outside of the company premises and working hours, the doctrine cannot implicate T.O. Retailers, LLC.
Conclusively, some ideas suggest the employer should be responsible for the injuries sustained by Diane and the driver. However, that stance has weak legal arguments based on the records of a past court ruling, the company policy, and the timing of the event. Diane is an adult who is free to make life choices that she feels fit. The employer would be overstepping their boundaries if they were to follow-up on every move Diane took. Despite the fact that she did not come with a spouse she is an adult with autonomy to make decisions. As for the driver, she is not an employee of T.O. Retailers, LLC. She made a sober decision after deciding to transport Diane, even after seeing that she was visibly intoxicated. The respondeat superior doctrine can only be a valid ground if the events occur within the scope of the employment. Therefore, the employer has no legal liability in Diane’s and driver’s accident, but may have moral implications for failing to consider her health and making her rest.
References
Brennan, C., & Carol. (2021). Tort law concentrate: Law revision and study guide. Oxford University Press.
Eisenstadt, L. F. (2019). Employer or Big Brother? Data analytics and incursions into workers’ personal lives. Performance Appraisal in Modern Employment Relations, 165-190.
Harris, D. (2021). The Rival Rationales of Vicarious Liability. Florida State University Business Review, 20, 49.