Federal Court to Rule on Employer’s Liability for Post-Work Employee Negligence

How Can We Help You?

Courts

10/21/2009
Mark D. Dix
Comments (0)

Federal Court to Rule on Employer’s Liability for Post-Work Employee Negligence

A three-day jury trial is scheduled to take place sometime in December before the federal trial court for the Western District of Virginia. The trial will focus on whether an employee is within the scope of employment when he is staying overnight in a hotel room for the purpose of receiving operations training at another of his employer’s locations. No Virginia court has previously addressed this question.

In Rivett Group, LLC v. Chelda, Inc., Ham’s Restaurants sent a promising employee to receive management training at the restaurant chain’s Danville location. Because the training would take multiple days, Ham’s rented a room in the Super 8 Motel next door to its restaurant for the employee. During the night, the employee had other managerial trainees in his hotel room, and an ashtray was emptied into the trashcan. A fire resulted, causing over $300,000 in damages to the motel. In this case, the employee is responsible for the damage, but is the employer also liable for the actions of its careless employee?

In Virginia, like other jurisdictions, an employer’s liability for its employees’ negligence is determined by the scope of the employment relationship. If the employee-negligence is committed while the employee was acting within the scope of his employment (a postal worker delivering mail, for instance), then the employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The difficult question to be answered in this case is whether an employee staying overnight at the request and expense of his employer is acting within the scope of the employment relationship.

The Super 8 Motel owners think that the employment relationship does encompass the overnight stay, borrowing a legal doctrine called the Bunkhouse Rule from Workers’ Compensation Law. Under that doctrine, if an employer provides housing for its employees, then the employer is liable for employee-negligence in the residence. While this rule may help inform the court’s decision, it is not clearly applicable to the unique facts of the case. It is unclear how the federal court will rule on this case of first impression in Virginia.

Labels: