Pl - Wong-Leong
Df - HIRI
Rellamas crashed into a car carrying 4 people in which they were
Rellamas had consumed alcohol and MJ.
He was at his own party celebrating his promotion in which beer was
consumed at work between 6pm 7:30pm.
The accident occurred at 8:30PM on his way home.
At HIRI consumption of beer took place daily.
There was a regular occurrence of pau hana(end-of-work) parties on
Friday of every month, playing horse shoes almost daily, and
mini parties for promotions, birthdays, babies, vacations, and
other similar events.
An employer may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees that
occur within the scope of their employment.
Scope of Employment (In Henderson)
To recover under the respondeat superior theory, the Pl must establish:
act of the employee, in order words, breach of a duty that
is the legal cause of the Pl - injuries.
negligent act was within the employees scope of employment.
Whether the enterprise of the employer
would have benefited by the context of the act of the
employee BUT FOR the unfortunate injury?
Whether the employers risks are
incident to the enterprise?
Superior Claim (Costa)
A Respondeat Superior claim may be predicated upon the actors
allegedly negligent act of drinking while aware of the need to
drive, provided that the act
takes place within the scope of employment.
Requirement Discussion (Negligent act of the employee)
There is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that Rellamas
breached his duty. He BAL was at .80% and he consumed MJ.
Requirement Discussion (Scope Of Employment)
A reasonable trier of facts could infer that the promotion party was a
custom incidental to the enterprise rather than a purely social
The maintenance manager said parties are a morale builder.
The shift supervisor said horseshoes is for the employees.
The maintenance managers testimony supports a reasonable inference
that the presence of alcohol was a crucial ingredient of these
Holding that there was evidence and allegations that supported a claim
for respondeat superior, because the party
had been organized for the
benefit of the employer and the
participation by the employee
could be considered within
the scope of employment and the consequences of
drinking at the party were that the
employee may drive home intoxicated,
which was reasonably foreseeable
by the employer.
The court further held that the employer had no duty to control the
activities of the employee after the employee left the scope of
employment, because the employer could not be held liable as a
The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to
the trial court for a trial, because the employer had liability
under the theory of respondeat superior, based on the evidence
and allegations that showed that the company party was for the
benefit of the employer, but there was no liability on the
employer as a social host for failing to control the employee's
conduct after he left the company party.