MEMORANDUM

To: Alfred Dewey, Senior Partner

CC: Allison Hewitt, Writing Fellow
From: 5987!7
Date: "o#em$er %%, %!!&
'e: (5) Potential *ia$ility for A+ts of ,m-loyee
Question Presented I
.nder "ort/ Carolina so+ial0/ost law, is an em-loyer negligent w/en it ser#es
al+o/ol at a /oliday -arty to one of its em-loyees w/o $e+omes into1i+ated and
negligently dri#es +a2sing damages to a t/ird -arty, e#en if t/e em-loyer attem-ted to
-re#ent t/e em-loyee from dri#ing $y instr2+ting /im not to dri#e, ta3ing /is +ar 3eys
and $lo+3ing /is +ar in t/e -ar3ing lot4
Question Presented II
Se+ond, 2nder "ort/ Carolina5s res-ondeat s2-erior do+trine, is an em-loyer
lia$le for t/e negligen+e of an em-loyee w/o attends an o-tional /oliday -arty at t/e
em-loyer5s offi+es t/at in+l2des t/e em-loyer5s $iggest +lients, e#en if /e is
2n+om-ensated for t/e time, t/e -arty is /eld o2tside wor3 /o2rs, and /e is not
-erforming /is ty-i+al 6o$ d2ties4
Brief Answer I
Pro$a$ly no7 "ort/ Carolina so+ial0/ost law is gro2nded in +ommon law
negligen+e7 T/erefore, an em-loyer +an $e fo2nd lia$le for negligen+e as a so+ial /ost
w/en it /as 89 a d2ty, %9 it $rea+/es t/at d2ty, 9 and t/e $rea+/ is t/e -ro1imate +a2se of
&9 damages to a t/ird -arty7 Hutchens v. Hankins, : "7C7 A--7 8 ;89897 W/ile (5 /ad
a d2ty to t/e -2$li+ not to ser#e al+o/ol to an into1i+ated em-loyee ;(r7 <ond9 w/o it
3new to $e dri#ing, it did not $rea+/ t/is d2ty $e+a2se it too3 all t/e -re+a2tions a
8
reasona$ly -r2dent -erson in t/ose +ir+2mstan+es wo2ld ta3e to -re#ent (r7 <ond from
dri#ing7 Additionally, ser#ing (r7 <ond al+o/ol was not t/e -ro1imate +a2se of t/e
damages7 ,#en t/o2g/ t/e damages wo2ld not /a#e o++2rred =$2t for> (55s ser#ing (r7
<ond al+o/ol, it was 2nforeseea$le t/at t/e /e wo2ld ta3e s2+/ e1treme meas2res to get
aro2nd t/e em-loyer5s -re+a2tions7
Brief Answer II
Pro$a$ly no7 .nder "ort/ Carolina5s res-ondeat s2-erior do+trine, a +om-any
+an $e /eld lia$le for t/e torts of a -erson if 89 t/e -erson was negligent, %9 t/e -erson
was an em-loyee of t/e +om-any, and 9 t/e -erson5s negligen+e o++2rred wit/in t/e
s+o-e of t/eir em-loyment7 Creel v. N.C. Dept of Health & Human Res., 85% "7C7 A--7
%!! ;%!!%97 (r7 <ond was a salaried salesman of (5 re+ei#ing standard +or-orate
$enefits7 T/is esta$lis/es an em-loyer?em-loyee relations/i-7 Howe#er, (r7 <ond was
not a+ting in t/e +o2rse of /is em-loyment in attending t/e -arty $e+a2se /e did not
-erform any of /is normal 6o$ f2n+tions, t/e -arty was on a Sat2rday o2tside normal
wor3ing /o2rs, /e was 2n+om-ensated for /is time and attendan+e was not mandatory7
Facts
@n t/e e#ening of Sat2rday, De+em$er %!, %!!, (5 /osted a C/ristmas -arty at
its offi+es7 ,m-loyees were en+o2raged to attend7 (5 in#ited some of its $iggest +lients7
A$o2t 75 em-loyees and +2stomers attended t/e -arty in+l2ding (r7 <ond, a to- (5
salesman7 Also in attendan+e was /is $oss, t/e sole owner of t/e +om-any7 (r7 <ond is a
salaried em-loyee of (5 and re+ei#es m2lti-le $enefits in+l2ding +ommissions, life
ins2ran+e, a retirement -lan, and /ealt/ ins2ran+e7 Des-ite mingling wit/ +lients at t/e
-arty, m2lti-le em-loyees re-orted t/at (r7 <ond ne#er tal3ed a$o2t (5 or its -rod2+ts7
%
D2ring t/e -arty, (5 ser#ed (r7 <ond m2lti-le al+o/oli+ $e#erages7 An (5 em-loyee
+laimed wat+/ing (r7 <ond drin3 eig/t #od3a martinis in a s-an of t/ree /o2rs7
At a$o2t 8!-m, (r7 <ond told /is $oss t/at /e was going to dri#e to a $ar7 His
$oss told /im not to dri#e $e+a2se /e was =o$#io2sly dr2n37> (r7 <ond insisted t/at /e
was lea#ing so /is $oss and anot/er em-loyee too3 away /is +ar 3eys7 (r7 <ond sn2+3
into t/e em-loyee5s offi+e and fo2nd a s-are set of 3eys for /is +om-any +ar7 (eanw/ile,
/is $oss went o2tside and -ar3ed in front of (r7 <ond5s +ar -re#enting /im from $eing
a$le to e1it /is -ar3ing s-a+e7 Antent on lea#ing, (r7 <ond smas/ed t/e winds/ield of /is
$oss5s +ar and -2t it in ne2tral7 He t/en started /is own +ar and dro#e it into /is $oss5s
+ar, -2s/ing it o2t of t/e way7 (r7 <ond s2$seB2ently dro#e /is +ar off t/e road and ran
o#er a -ri+eless +olle+tion of lawn art $efore +areening into (r7 C5s /o2se7 S2$stantial
damages were s2stained to $ot/ t/e /o2se and t/e lawn art7
(5 /as retained o2r ser#i+es to assess its -otential lia$ility 2nder "ort/ Carolina5s
so+ial0/ost laws and t/e do+trine of res-ondeat s2-erior7
Discussion
I: Social-ost Ne!li!ence
(5 is assessing its -otential lia$ility 2nder "ort/ Carolina so+ial0/ost law7 T/e
S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina re+ogniDed so+ial0/ost lia$ility in 899%7 Hart v. Ivey,
% "7C7 %99 ;899%97 Anstead of +reating a new +a2se of a+tion, t/e Co2rt gro2nded
so+ial0/ost lia$ility in esta$lis/ed +ommon0law negligen+e -rin+i-les7 Id. T/erefore, to
-ro#e (5 g2ilty in its role of so+ial /ost, (r7 C m2st s/ow t/at (5 /ad 89 a d2ty, %9 t/at
it $rea+/ed its d2ty, 9 and t/at t/e $rea+/ was t/e -ro1imate +a2se of &9 t/e damages to
(r7 C7 Hutchens v. Hankins, : "7C7 A--7 8 ;89897

A7 D2ty
To -ro#e (5 lia$le for negligen+e 2nder so+ial0/ost law, (r7 C will /a#e to s/ow
t/at (5 /ad a d2ty to -rote+t (r7 C and /is -ro-erty7 An Hart, defendants /osted a -arty
w/ere a g2est $e+ame into1i+ated and t/en got into a +ar a++ident and serio2sly in62red
t/e -laintiffs7 Hart, % "7C7 %997 T/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina stated t/at
so+ial /osts /a#e a =d2ty to t/e -eo-le w/o tra#el on t/e -2$li+ /ig/ways7> Hart, %
"7C7 %99 at !57 T/ey f2rt/er stated t/at t/is d2ty was to not =ser#e al+o/ol to an
into1i+ated indi#id2al w/o was 3nown to $e dri#ing7> Hart, % "7C7 %99 at !57 An
Camalier v. Jeffries, a -2$lis/ing +om-any t/rew a /oliday -arty after w/i+/ an
em-loyee dro#e and 3illed t/e -laintiff5s son7 Camalier v. Jeffries, &! "7C7 :99 ;899597
T/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina +onfirmed t/at an em-loyer /as a d2ty not to =89
ser#e al+o/ol to a -erson %9 w/en /e 3new or s/o2ld /a#e 3nown t/e -erson was
into1i+ated and 9 w/en /e 3new t/e -erson wo2ld $e dri#ing7> Id. at 7887
An t/is +ase, (r7 C will -ro$a$ly $e a$le to s/ow t/at (5 /ad a d2ty not to ser#e
al+o/ol to (r7 <ond if /is $oss 3new /e was -lanning on dri#ing7 (5 is similar to t/e
so+ial /osts in $ot/ Hart and Camalier in w/i+/ t/e +o2rt fo2nd t/ey /ad a d2ty to -eo-le
2sing -2$li+ /ig/ways not to ser#e al+o/ol to into1i+ated g2ests w/o t/ey 3new wo2ld $e
dri#ing7 Camalier, &! "7C7 :99) Hart, % "7C7 %997 (r7 C will -ro$a$ly $e a$le to
esta$lis/ t/at (5 was aware t/at (r7 <ond was into1i+ated7 His $oss stated t/at /e was
=o$#io2sly dr2n3> and anot/er em-loyee +laims to /a#e seen /im drin3 eig/t #od3a
martinis7 Additionally, (r7 C will li3ely $e a$le to -ro#e t/at (5 3new (r7 <ond was
-lanning on dri#ing7 (r7 <ond told /is $oss t/at /e was going to lea#e t/e /oliday -arty
and go to anot/er $ar7 His $oss t/en too3 away /is +ar 3eys s2ggesting /e was aware (r7
&
<ond was -lanning to dri#e7 T/e +o2rt in Hart limits t/e so+ial /ost5s d2ty to =t/e -eo-le
w/o tra#el on t/e -2$li+ /ig/ways7> Id. Howe#er, w/ile (r7 C was not 2sing t/e -2$li+
/ig/way at t/e time /e s2stained damages, a +o2rt is li3ely to in+l2de /im in t/e +ategory
of -eo-le t/e d2ty was meant to -rote+t7
T/erefore, (r7 C will li3ely esta$lis/ t/at (5 /ad a d2ty not to ser#e al+o/ol to a
g2est 3nown to $e into1i+ated if t/e g2est was -lanning on dri#ing7
<7 <rea+/
To -ro#e (5 lia$le for negligen+e 2nder so+ial0/ost law, (r7 C will /a#e to s/ow
t/at (5 $rea+/ed its d2ty to (r7 C7 An Hart, t/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina stated
t/at so+ial /osts $rea+/ t/eir d2ty w/en t/ey =ser#e al+o/ol to an into1i+ated
indi#id2alE3nown to $e dri#ing7> Hart, % "7C7 %997 T/e Co2rt fo2nd for t/e
em-loyer stating t/at t/e -laintiff failed to -ro#ide e#iden+e t/at =t/e dri#er was ser#ed
al+o/ol w/enEt/e -2$lis/ing +om-any 3new or s/o2ld /a#e 3nown t/at FdefendantG was
into1i+ated7> Camalier, &! "7C7 :99 at 78%7 'at/er, se#eral doDen g2ests stated t/at /e
=did not a--ear to $e im-aired or into1i+ated at any time d2ring t/e e#ening7> Id. at 7!&7
T/e +o2rt in Hart stated t/at yo2 +an also find a so+ial /ost negligent w/en t/ey
fail to =e1er+ise t/e degree of +are w/i+/ a reasona$le and -r2dent -erson wo2ld e1er+ise
2nder similar +ir+2mstan+es7> Hart, % "7C7 %99 at !57 Similarly, in Camalier, t/e
+o2rt /eld t/e em-loyer was not negligent w/en t/ey /ad ta3en =e#ery reasona$le ste- to
safely ser#e al+o/oli+ $e#erages to t/e g2ests7> Camalier, &! "7C7 :99 at 7897
An Peal v. mith, an em-loyer #ol2ntarily ado-ted a r2le in its em-loyee /and$oo3
-ro/i$iting em-loyees 2nder t/e infl2en+e of al+o/ol to $e on t/e wor3 site7 Peal v.
mith, 885 "7C7 A--7 %%57 T/is r2le was not ty-i+ally enfor+ed7 @ne nig/t an em-loyee
5
+ons2med al+o/ol in t/e +om-any -ar3ing lot and t/en dro#e and in62red t/e -laintiff7
T/e "ort/ Carolina Co2rt of A--eals fo2nd for t/e -laintiff stating t/at t/e em-loyer5s
#iolation of its own -oli+y -ro/i$iting al+o/ol was e#iden+e of a $rea+/ of t/e d2ty and
standard of +are reB2ired $y t/e em-loyer7 Id.
(r7 C will -ro$a$ly $e a$le to s/ow t/at (5 ser#ed (r7 <ond al+o/ol w/en /e
was into1i+ated7 (r7 <ond5s own $oss said /e was =o$#io2sly dr2n37> Additionally, a
different em-loyee stated t/at s/e witnessed (r7 <ond drin3 eig/t #od3a martinis in t/e
s-an of t/ree /o2rs7 T/is is #ery different from Camalier in w/i+/ doDens of g2ests at
t/e -arty stated t/at t/e defendant did not a--ear into1i+ated7 Camalier, &! "7C7 :99 at
7!&7 W/ile t/ere is no dire+t e#iden+e t/at (r7 <ond was a+t2ally ser#ed al+o/ol after /e
$e+ame into1i+ated, a 62dge is li3ely to find eno2g/ +ir+2mstantial e#iden+e to -ass t/is
to a 62ry7 A 62ry +o2ld t/en reasona$ly infer t/at (5 ser#ed (r7 <ond al+o/ol w/en it
3new or s/o2ld /a#e 3nown /e was into1i+ated7 Camalier, &! "7C7 :997
At will $e diffi+2lt for (r7 C to -ro#e t/at (5 3new (r7 <ond wo2ld $e dri#ing7
W/ile (r7 <ond did tell /is $oss t/at /e was going to dri#e to anot/er $ar, /is $oss too3
many ste-s to -re#ent it7 First, /is $oss instr2+ted /im not to lea#e7 Se+ond, /is $oss
too3 /is +ar 3eys from /im7 T/ird, /is $oss -ar3ed /is +ar in s2+/ a way as to -re#ent (r7
<ond from $eing a$le to get /is +ar o2t of t/e -ar3ing lot7 H2st li3e in Hart, it is li3ely
t/at a +o2rt will find t/at t/e -re+a2tions (r7 <ond5s $oss too3 to -re#ent /im from
dri#ing s/owed a =degree of +are w/i+/ a reasona$le and -r2dent -erson wo2ld e1er+ise
2nder similar +ir+2mstan+es7> Hart, % "7C7 %99 at !57 T/is is also s2ffi+iently similar
to Camalier, in w/i+/ t/e +o2rt +on+l2ded t/at t/e so+ial /osts =too3 e#ery reasona$le
ste- to safely ser#e al+o/oli+ $e#erages to t/e g2ests7> Camalier, &! "7C7 :99 at 7897
:
T/is +ase is disting2is/a$le from Peal $e+a2se t/ere is no e#iden+e t/at (5
ado-ted any s-e+ial r2les -ro/i$iting +ons2m-tion of al+o/ol on (5 -ro-erty7 Af it t2rns
o2t t/at (5 #ol2ntarily ado-ted a similar r2le and was in #iolation of t/at r2le, (r7 C
may /a#e an easier time s/owing t/at (5 /ad $rea+/ed its reB2ired standard of +are7
T/erefore, (r7 C will /a#e diffi+2lty s/owing t/at (5 $rea+/ed its d2ty to t/e
general -2$li+7 W/ile /e will li3ely $e a$le to -ro#e t/at (5 ser#ed al+o/ol to (r7 <ond
w/ile /e was into1i+ated, a 62ry will -ro$a$ly find t/at /is $oss too3 t/e -re+a2tions a
reasona$le and -r2dent -erson wo2ld ta3e to -re#ent (r7 <ond from dri#ing7
C: Pro1imate Ca2se

To -ro#e (5 lia$le for negligen+e 2nder so+ial /ost law, (r7 C will /a#e to s/ow
t/at (5 $rea+/ed its d2ty and t/at t/is $rea+/ was t/e -ro1imate +a2se of t/e res2lting
damages to /is -ro-erty7 Hutchens v. Hankins, : "7C7 A--7 8 ;89897 @riginally, "ort/
Carolina +ommon law did not /old -ro#iders of al+o/oli+ $e#erages lia$le for damages
+a2sed $y t/e dri#ing a++idents of its into1i+ated -atrons7 Camalier v. Jeffries, &! "7C7
:99 ;899597 T/e +o2rt arg2ed t/at t/e -ro1imate +a2se of t/e a++ident was t/e into1i+ated
-erson +/oosing to dri#e rat/er t/an t/e al+o/ol -ro#ider ser#ing t/e al+o/ol7 Id.
T/e +o2rt in Hutchens mo#es away from t/is r2le7 An Hutchens, t/e +o2rt /eld
t/at t/e =f2rnis/ing of an al+o/oli+ $e#erage to an into1i+ated -erson> can !e a
=-ro1imate +a2se of in62ries infli+ted $y t/at indi#id2al 2-on a t/ird -erson7> Hutchens,
: "7C7 A--7 87 at 887 T/e +o2rt, re+ogniDing t/e need to define a $o2ndary t/at wo2ld
limit lia$ility, +on+l2ded t/at =t/e +on+e-t of t/e foreseea$le ris3> offers t/e =most elasti+
and -ra+ti+al sol2tion7I Id. at %%7 T/erefore, a -ro#ider of al+o/oli+ $e#erages is lia$le
7
for damages +a2sed $y a -atron5s +ond2+t if =t/e +ons2m-tion, res2lting into1i+ation, and
in62ry0-rod2+ing +ond2+t are foreseea$le7> Id. at 8%7
An Hart, t/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina +onfirmed t/at t/is new r2le
a--lied to so+ial /osts7 Hart, % "7C7 %99 at !57 T/e Co2rt sent t/e +ase to trial /olding
t/at a 62ry =+o2ld find t/e negligent +ond2+t was t/e -ro1imate +a2se of t/e in62ry to
-laintiffs7> Id. at !57 A++ording to t/e +o2rt, a -erson of ordinary -r2den+e 3nows t/at
an a2tomo$ile +ollision is reasona$ly foreseea$le w/en yo2 ser#e al+o/ol to someone
w/o is dr2n3 and -lanning on dri#ing7 Id.
An "inters v. #ee t/e -laintiff s2ed a grandmot/er for negligen+e alleging t/at s/e
loaned /er +ar to /er grandson at a time w/en s/e 3new or s/o2ld /a#e 3nown t/at /e
-osed a t/reat to t/e -laintiff7 "inters v. #ee, 885 "7C7A--7 :9%7 T/e grandson too3 t/e
+ar to t/e -laintiff5s /o2se, went inside and sta$$ed /er7 Id. An t/is +ase, t/e "ort/
Carolina Co2rt of A--eals did not find t/e grandmot/er negligent7 T/ey stated t/at t/ey
did =not $elie#e it foreseea$le $y a -erson of ordinary -r2den+e> t/at after $orrowing t/e
+ar t/e defendant =wo2ldEdri#e to a -ri#ate residen+e and sta$ or ot/erwise assa2lt t/e
o++2-ant7> Id. at :977 T/e +o2rt t/erefore determined t/at t/e grandmot/er5s loaning of
t/e +ar was not a -ro1imate +a2se of t/e in62ries to t/e -laintiff7
An Rudeck v. "ri$ht, a s2rgeon left a =la- mat> in a man5s a$domen and t/e man
s2$seB2ently died7 T/e s2rgeon, radiologist and n2rses were all fo2nd to $e negligent7
T/e S2-reme Co2rt of (ontana stated t/at t/e s2rgeon5s +ond2+t wo2ld $e a +a2se of t/e
damages if t/ey =wo2ld not /a#e o++2rred !ut for t/at +ond2+t7> Rudeck v. "ri$ht, %88
(ont7 &8 at 5%7 T/e +o2rt also stated t/at w/ere more t/an one -arty5s negligen+e +a2ses
t/e damages, a 62ry +an find -ro1imate +a2se if t/e negligen+e =was a s2$stantial fa+tor>
8
in t/e damages7 Id. at 587 An t/is +ase, t/e =sim2ltaneo2s negligent a+t of t/e n2rses> did
not -rote+t t/e defendant from lia$ility7 Id. at 587
(r7 C will /a#e diffi+2lty -ro#ing t/at ser#ing (r7 <ond al+o/ol was a -ro1imate
+a2se of t/e res2lting a++ident7 Per Hutchens, ser#ing al+o/ol is only a -ro1imate +a2se
of an into1i+ated -atron5s f2t2re +ond2+t if t/at +ond2+t wo2ld $e foreseea$le to a
reasona$le -erson7 Hutchens, : "7C7 A--7 8 at 8%7 An t/is +ase, t/ere is no e#iden+e t/at
(5 3new (r7 <ond was -lanning on dri#ing 2ntil after /e $e+ame into1i+ated and
informed /is $oss /e was going to dri#e to anot/er $ar7 @n+e informed, /is $oss too3
n2mero2s -re+a2tions to -re#ent (r7 <ond from dri#ing in+l2ding instr2+ting /im not to
lea#e, ta3ing /is +ar 3eys, and $lo+3ing /is +ar in t/e -ar3ing lot7 (r7 <ond disregarded
/is $oss5s instr2+tion, $arged into anot/er em-loyee5s offi+e wit/o2t -ermission and too3
a s-are set of 3eys7 He t/en $ro3e t/e window of /is $oss5s +ar and -2t it in ne2tral7
"e1t, /e got into /is own +ar and dro#e into /is $oss5s +ar -2s/ing it o2t of /is way7
Finally, /e +areened off a -2$li+ road and into (r7 C5s li#ing room7 At will $e #ery
diffi+2lt for (r7 C to +on#in+e a 62ry t/at t/is set of +ir+2mstan+es was =foreseea$le> to a
-erson of ordinary -r2den+e7 T/is set of +ir+2mstan+es is e#en more +on#ol2ted t/an in
"inters, w/ere t/e +o2rt r2led t/at t/e defendant was not lia$le $e+a2se it was
2nforeseea$le t/at /er grandson wo2ld ta3e t/e +ar to t/e -laintiffs /o2se, enter t/e
/o2se, and sta$ t/e o++2-ant7
(r7 C will -ro$a$ly $e a$le to s/ow t/at t/e a++ident wo2ld not /a#e o++2rred
=$2t for> (55s a+tions7 T/is is similar to Rudeck, w/ere t/e +o2rt fo2nd t/at t/e
-laintiff5s deat/ wo2ld not /a#e o++2rred =$2t for> t/e negligen+e of t/e s2rgeon7 Rudeck
v. "ri$ht, %88 (ont7 &87 Additionally, (r7 <ond negligently dri#ing dr2n3 will not
9
ins2late (5 from lia$ility7 T/is is similar to Rudeck in w/i+/ t/e =sim2ltaneo2s
negligent a+t of t/e n2rses> did not -rote+t t/e s2rgeon from lia$ility7 Howe#er, t/is +ase
is disting2is/ed from Rudeck $e+a2se of t/e 2nforeseea$ility of t/e e1treme meas2res (r7
<ond too3 to a#oid (55s -re+a2tions7 (5 will -ro$a$ly not $e fo2nd lia$le $e+a2se t/is
2nforeseea$ility will -re#ent (r7 C from esta$lis/ing (5s ser#ing of al+o/ol as a
-ro1imate +a2se of t/e damages7
T/erefore, (r7 C will /a#e diffi+2lty -ro#ing t/at ser#ing al+o/ol to (r7 <ond
was a -ro1imate +a2se of t/e res2lting damages7 W/ile (r7 <ond -ro$a$ly wo2ld not
/a#e gotten into t/e a++ident =$2t for> t/e al+o/ol ser#ed to /im at (55s /oliday -arty,
t/e e1traordinary meas2res /e too3 to get aro2nd t/e -re+a2tions ta3en $y (5 to -re#ent
/im from dri#ing were -ro$a$ly 2nforeseea$le to a -erson of ordinary -r2den+e7
D: Damages
To -ro#e (5 g2ilty of negligen+e 2nder so+ial0/ost law, (r7 C will /a#e to s/ow
t/at /e s2stained a+t2al damages7 An Ivey v. Rose, t/e "ort/ Carolina Co2rt of A--eals
stated t/at t/e Iintentional a+t of dri#ing w/ile im-aired> is =s2ffi+iently wantonI to
warrant -2niti#e damages7 Ivey v. Rose, 9& "7C7 A--7 777
T/erefore, if (5 is /eld lia$le, it -ro$a$ly will /a#e to -ay -2niti#e damages in
addition to +om-ensatory damages for t/e $ro3en wall and destroyed lawn art7
II: "icarious #ia$ilit% &Res'ondeat Su'erior(
(5 is also assessing t/e li3eli/ood t/at it will $e fo2nd #i+ario2sly lia$le 2nder
"ort/ Carolina5s do+trine of res-ondeat s2-erior7 To -ro#e (5 #i+ario2sly lia$le for (r7
<ond5s tort, (r7 C m2st s/ow t/at 89 (r7 <ond was negligent, %9 /e was an em-loyee of
8!
(5, and 9 /is negligen+e o++2rred wit/in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment7 Creel v. N.C.
Dept of Health & Human Res., 85% "7C7 A--7 %!! at %!7
A7 "egligen+e?Pro1imate Ca2se
For t/e -2r-ose of t/is memo, (r7 <ond is ass2med to /a#e $een negligent and
t/at t/is negligen+e was t/e -ro1imate +a2se of t/e damages to (r7 C5s -ro-erty7
Anot/er asso+iate is resear+/ing t/is iss2e7
<7 ,m-loyer?,m-loyee 'elations/i-
To -ro#e (5 #i+ario2sly lia$le 2nder t/e do+trine of res-ondeat s2-erior, (r7 C
m2st s/ow t/at (5 and (r7 <ond /a#e an em-loyer?em-loyee relations/i-7 An Hayes v.
%oard of &rustees, t/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina r2led t/at an em-loyee
relations/i- is +reated w/en t/e em-loyer /as =retained t/e rig/t of +ontrol> o#er t/e
em-loyee7 Hayes v. %oard of &rustees, %%& "7C7 88 ;89&&97 An 'au$hn v. North Carolina
Dept of Human Res., t/e +o2rt +onfirmed t/is r2le stating t/at #i+ario2s lia$ility =arises
from t/e rig/t of s2-er#ision and +ontrol7> 'au$hn v. North Carolina Dept of Human
Res., %9: "7C7 :8 ;897997 An Creel v. N.C. Dept of Health & Human Res., a g2ardian of
a +/ild was in62red w/ile /is foster fat/er was o-erating a lawn mower and s2ed t/e
De-artment of Healt/ and H2man Ser#i+es ;DHHS9 2nder t/e do+trine of res-ondeat
s2-erior7 T/e "ort/ Carolina Co2rt of A--eals dismissed t/e +laim $e+a2se it was
2ndis-2ted t/at =no em-loyment relations/i- e1isted $etween t/e Ffoster -arentsG and
DHHS> and t/erefore =t/e do+trine of res-ondeat s2-erior +annot $e a--lied7> Creel, 85%
"7C7 A--7 %!! at %!, %!&7 T/e +o2rt also ma3es a distin+tion $etween Jem-loyees5 and
Jinde-endent +ontra+tors5 saying t/at an em-loyer may $e /eld #i+ario2sly lia$le for t/e
torts of an Jem-loyee5 $2t not t/e torts of an Jinde-endent +ontra+tor57 Id. at %!&7
88
An t/is +ase, (r7 C will #ery li3ely $e a$le to s/ow t/at an em-loyer?em-loyee
relations/i- e1ists $etween (r7 <ond and (57 (r7 <ond is not an Jinde-endent
+ontra+tor5 $e+a2se /e re+ei#es a yearly $ase salary, standard $enefits li3e life and /ealt/
ins2ran+e, and /as an em-loyer0s-onsored retirement -lan7 T/erefore, (r7 <ond does not
fit into t/e Jinde-endent +ontra+tor5 e1+e-tion defined in Creel7 Additionally, as in
'au$hn and Hayes, (5 /as retained t/e rig/t =+ontrol> and =s2-er#ision> o#er t/e details
of /ow (r7 <ond5s wor3 is done7 'au$hn, %9: "7C7 :8) Hayes, %%& "7C7 887
T/erefore, it is #ery li3ely t/at (r7 C will $e a$le to s/ow t/at (5 and (r7 <ond
/a#e an em-loyer?em-loyee relations/i-7
C7 S+o-e of ,m-loyment
To -ro#e (5 #i+ario2sly lia$le 2nder t/e do+trine of res-ondeat s2-erior, (r7 C
m2st s/ow t/at (r7 <ond was wit/in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment in attending t/e
/oliday -arty7 An Chastain v. #itton ystems( Inc., an em-loyee $e+ame into1i+ated at a
C/ristmas -arty /osted d2ring reg2lar wor3ing /o2rs on t/e em-loyer5s -remises w/ere
attendan+e was +/e+3ed7 Chastain v. #itton ystems( Inc., :9& F7%d 9577 ,#iden+e
s/owed t/at t/e em-loyer f2rnis/ed t/e em-loyee al+o/ol, allowed /im to get
into1i+ated, and t/en 3nowingly let /im dri#e /ome7 Id. T/e a--ellate +o2rt remanded t/e
+ase for trial stating t/at =w/et/er *itton was sim-ly entertaining its em-loyees at a
-2rely so+ial gat/ering, or w/et/er it was f2rt/ering a $2siness -2r-ose $y im-ro#ing
wor3ing relations/i-s, -resented a 62ry B2estion7> Id. at 9:!7
<y +ontrast, in Camalier v. Jeffries, t/e S2-reme Co2rt of "ort/ Carolina granted
s2mmary 62dgment to an em-loyer r2ling t/at t/ere was no gen2ine iss2e of material fa+t
as to w/et/er defendant5s attendan+e at t/e -arty was wit/in /is s+o-e of em-loyment7
8%
Camalier v. Jeffries, &! "7C7 :99 at 78&7 Defendants -rod2+ed s2$stantial e#iden+e t/at
em-loyees were not reB2ired to attend t/e -arty, no attendan+e was ta3en, t/e -arty was
/eld on a wee3end o2tside 2s2al wor3ing /o2rs, and t/e -arty was /eld at a -ri#ate /ome
rat/er t/an t/e +om-any5s $2siness fa+ilities7 Id. To try to -ro#e t/e dri#er was wit/in t/e
s+o-e of em-loyment, -laintiffs $ro2g/t in a =$2siness e1-ert> w/o testified t/at t/e
-arty =en/an+ed t/e $2siness interests of t/e Fem-loyerGE$yEde#elo-ing good morale
and +amaraderie among em-loyees7> Id. at 78&7
An "illiams v. #evinson, t/e "ort/ Carolina Co2rt of A--eals again granted
s2mmary 62dgment to an em-loyer7 "illiams v. #evinson, 855 "7C7 A--7 %7 An t/is
+ase, t/e em-loyer /osted a C/ristmas -arty /eld offsite w/ere em-loyees were not
reB2ired to 'SKP and attendan+e was not ta3en7 Id. at &7 ,#en t/o2g/ it was /eld
d2ring reg2lar wor3ing /o2rs, any em-loyee w/o did not attend did not /a#e to remain at
wor37 Id. at &7 T/e +o2rt said t/ere were many fa+tors 2sed to determine if an
em-loyee5s attendan+e at a -arty is wit/in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment in+l2ding: 89
w/et/er t/e em-loyee -erformed any 6o$ f2n+tions w/ile attending t/e -arty) %9 w/et/er
t/e -arty did more for em-loyer t/an sim-ly $oost em-loyeeLs morale and +amaraderie)
9 w/et/er t/ere was a s-e+ifi+ -rod2+ti#ity or -rofita$ility $enefit to t/e $2siness from
t/e -arty) &9 w/et/er t/e -arty was /eld d2ring normal $2siness /o2rs) 59 w/et/er it was
/eld at t/e -la+e of $2siness) :9 w/et/er em-loyees were +om-ensated for t/e time s-ent
at t/e -arty) 79 w/et/er an em-loyee was reB2ired to wor3 if t/at em-loyee +/ose not to
attend) 89 w/et/er an em-loyee stated t/at /e felt +om-elled to attend) 99 w/et/er t/ere is
e#iden+e t/at an em-loyeeLs fail2re to attend wo2ld res2lt in ad#erse +onseB2en+es) 8!9
8
w/et/er attendan+e was ta3en) 889 w/et/er t/ere was any ot/er e#iden+e t/at em-loyees
were reB2ired to attend7 Id. at 87
An Peal v. mith, t/e "ort/ Carolina Co2rt of A--eals fo2nd an em-loyer lia$le
for in62ries res2lting from t/e negligent of its em-loyees a+ting outside t/eir s+o-e of
em-loyment7 Peal v. mith, 885 "7C7 A--7 %%57 T/e +o2rt stated t/at a +ommon law
d2ty for t/e em-loyer is +reated w/en t/e em-loyee is on t/e em-loyer5s -remises, t/e
em-loyer /as t/e a$ility to +ontrol t/e em-loyee, and t/e em-loyer 3nows t/at s2+/
+ontrol is ne+essary7 Id. at %7
An t/is +ase, it is -ro$a$le t/at a +o2rt will r2le in fa#or of (5 saying t/at (r7
<ond was not in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment w/en attending t/e C/ristmas -arty7 First,
w/ile some of (55s +lients were -resent at t/e -arty, m2lti-le witnesses will testify t/at
(r7 <ond did not tal3 a$o2t (5 or its -rod2+ts7 T/is s2ggests t/at /e was not -erforming
in /is role as (5 salesman at t/e -arty7 T/is is similar to "illiams, w/ere t/e +o2rt fo2nd
t/at t/e defendant /ad not -erformed /er normal 6o$ f2n+tions w/ile attending t/e -arty
and t/at t/is was e#iden+e t/at s/e was o2tside /er s+o-e of em-loyment7 "illiams, 855
"7C7 A--7 %7 Se+ond, t/e -arty was /eld on a Sat2rday e#ening o2tside of normal
wor3ing /o2rs7 T/is is similar to Camalier, in w/i+/ t/e +o2rt said t/at t/e -arty $eing
/eld on a wee3end w/en t/e defendant did not 2s2ally wor3 was e#iden+e t/at /e was
o2tside t/e s+o-e of em-loyment7 Camalier, &! "7C7 :997 W/ile t/e -arty was /eld at
(55s offi+es, em-loyees were not reB2ired to attend, were not +om-ensated for t/eir
time, and t/ere was no e#iden+e t/at attendan+e was ta3en7
An Peal, t/e +o2rt +reated an e1+e-tion in w/i+/ an em-loyer is still lia$le for t/e
negligen+e of an em-loyee a+ting outside t/eir s+o-e of em-loyment7 Similar to Peal,
8&
(r7 <ond was on (55s -remises and (5 3new t/at +ontrolling /is a+tions was ne+essary7
Howe#er, t/is e1+e-tion does not a--ly $e+a2se (5 did not /a#e t/e a$ility to +ontrol /is
a+tions7 (5 made efforts to +ontrol (r7 <ond $y telling /im not to dri#e, ta3ing /is +ar
3eys, and $lo+3ing /is +ar7 Howe#er, (r7 <ond5s re+3less, e1treme $e/a#ior
+ir+2m#ented t/ese meas2res and made it infeasi$le for (5 to f2rt/er +ontrol /is a+tions7
For t/ese reasons, it is li3ely t/at (r7 C will $e 2na$le to -ro#e t/at (r7 <ond was
wit/in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment in attending (55s C/ristmas -arty7
)onclusion
(5 is -ro$a$ly not lia$le for negligen+e 2nder so+ial0/ost law7 W/ile (5
/ad a d2ty to t/e -2$li+ not to ser#e al+o/ol to (r7 <ond w/en /e was into1i+ated and
-lanning on dri#ing, it did not $rea+/ t/is d2ty $e+a2se it too3 all t/e -re+a2tions a
reasona$ly -r2dent -erson in t/ose +ir+2mstan+es wo2ld ta3e to -re#ent an into1i+ated
em-loyee from dri#ing7 Additionally, (5s ser#ing al+o/ol to (r7 <ond was -ro$a$ly not
a -ro1imate +a2se of t/e damages7 ,#en t/o2g/ t/e damages wo2ld not /a#e o++2rred
$2t for t/e ser#ing of al+o/ol, it was 2nforeseea$le t/at (r7 <ond wo2ld ta3e s2+/
e1treme meas2res to get aro2nd (55s -re+a2tions7
(5 is also -ro$a$ly not #i+ario2sly lia$le 2nder t/e do+trine of res-ondeat
s2-erior7 W/ile (r7 <ond is an em-loyee of (5 $e+a2se /e re+ei#es a $ase salary in
addition to standard +or-orate $enefits, /e was not a+ting in t/e s+o-e of /is em-loyment
in attending t/e -arty7 He did not -erform any of /is normal 6o$ f2n+tions, t/e -arty was
on a Sat2rday o2tside normal wor3ing /o2rs, /e was 2n+om-ensated for /is time and
attendan+e was not mandatory7
85