## Facts

- Edgewater Motels, Inc. operated a motel in Duluth, Minnesota, where Walgreen Company housed its district manager, A.J. Gatzke, during multiweek restaurant-opening assignments at Walgreen’s expense.
- Gatzke’s job involved long hours, broad discretion over when and where to work, and being on call at all times to address district restaurant issues.
- On August 23–24, 1973, after a long workday at the restaurant site, Gatzke went out with colleagues, drank alcohol while discussing work matters, and returned to his motel room.
- In the room, which he used as an “office away from home,” he prepared a Walgreen expense report and other work paperwork.
- While completing the paperwork, he smoked a cigarette; the cigarette or matches allegedly ignited combustibles near a wastebasket, causing a fire that substantially damaged the motel.
- Edgewater sued Gatzke and sought to hold Walgreen vicariously liable under respondeat superior for negligence occurring within the scope of Gatzke’s employment.

## Issues

1. Whether Gatzke’s negligent smoking in his motel room, while completing employer paperwork during a work-sponsored trip, occurred within the scope of employment such that Walgreen was vicariously liable.
2. Whether the jury’s allocation of 40% comparative fault to Edgewater should have been set aside.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict that had relieved Walgreen of liability and reinstated the jury’s scope-of-employment finding against Walgreen.
- The court held that smoking, when done contemporaneously with work activity during a work-sponsored assignment, could be treated as a minor deviation incidental to employment rather than a complete departure.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to disturb the jury’s finding that Edgewater’s negligence contributed 40% of the damages.

## Legal Principles

- An employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s torts committed within the scope of employment, determined by a fact-specific inquiry into whether the conduct furthered the employer’s business or was reasonably incidental to it.
- Minor personal acts commonly accompanying work (such as smoking) may fall within the scope of employment when performed while the employee is engaged in assigned duties, particularly during employer-sponsored travel with broad work expectations.
- Scope-of-employment determinations often present jury questions; judgment notwithstanding the verdict is improper where evidence permits a reasonable finding that the employee acted within the scope.
- Comparative fault allocations are generally upheld when supported by evidence and absent a clear basis to overturn the jury’s apportionment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Walgreen could be liable under respondeat superior because its traveling manager’s negligent smoking, occurring while he completed employer paperwork in a work-paid motel room, was a foreseeable, incidental deviation within the scope of employment, while leaving intact the jury’s 40% comparative negligence finding against the motel.


Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke, 277 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. 1979)