MICHAEL Landri worked as a bartender for the Marriott Del Mar Hotel in San Diego. In December 2009, the hotel held its annual holiday party for its employees. Marriott managers provided each party attendee with two alcoholic drink tickets. Landri did not work but he attended the party later that night. Before coming to the party, Landri drank a beer and a shot of “Jack Daniel’s” whiskey. A coworker drove him to the party, where Landri drank more liquor before leaving the party to go home almost three hours later.
About 20 minutes after arriving home, Landri decided to drive home a coworker who had become drunk at the party. hile doing so, Landri struck a vehicle driven by Dr. Jared Purton, killing Dr. Purton. Landri was found to have a .16 blood alcohol level. e pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol and received a six-year prison sentence. Purton’s parents sued Landri and Marriott.
Mariott asked the trial court to dismiss the case, arguing that Landri was not driving during the course and scope of work when he got into an accident, and that the employer’s liability ended when he arrived home. The trial court agreed with the employer and dismissed the case. Purton’s parents appealed.
In the appeal, Purton’s parents argued that Marriott held the party for its benefit. Landri became extremely intoxicated at Marriott’s party, and it allowed Landri to leave the hotel and drive. Landri arrived home and then decided to drive another person home, while he was still intoxicated. It was in this drunken state that he drove over 100 miles per hour, and rear-ended Purton’s vehicle and killed him. Purton’s parents argued that Purton’s death was proximately caused by the employer negligently providing alcohol to the employee, getting him drunk, and allowing him to drive home. Once home, it was foreseeable that the employee would drive someone else while still drunk.
The Court of Appeal agreed in favor of the parents, saying that the jury should have been allowed to determine whether Landri was still in the course and scope of his work during the accident. The employer’s liability extends beyond his actual control of the employee to include risks created by the business. Thus, an employer’s liability may extend to the employee’s negligence.
An employer may be liable for an employee’s harmful conduct if the employee’s act was an “outgrowth of his employment,” or “incidental to the employer’s business.” There is no legal justification for terminating the employer’s liability simply because the employee arrived home safely from the employer hosted party.
In serious personal injury cases, the stakes are higher, so that a different level of skill and persistence is needed to pursue all avenues of remedies in order to obtain maximum recovery for the client or their families. Knowledgeable and experienced attorneys find creative applications of legal principles to successfully recover compensation for serious injuries. Our law firm has achieved results in the past, and we are honored to have brought justice to the injured and their families.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully recovered wages and other monetary relief for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.
