## Facts

- Trojan Fireworks Company held a Christmas party at its plant during regular working hours.
- Employees were allegedly required (or effectively required) to attend and were paid for the time spent at the party.
- Trojan allegedly provided alcoholic beverages and, through its agents and employees, caused or encouraged employee Anthony Barajas to consume large quantities of alcohol.
- After leaving the party, Barajas drove while intoxicated and collided with another vehicle.
- The collision allegedly caused the death of James Harris and injuries to minors Dawn and Steven Griffin.
- Plaintiffs sued Trojan seeking to impose vicarious liability under respondeat superior, alleging Barajas’s intoxication occurred within the course and scope of employment.
- The trial court sustained Trojan’s demurrer with leave to amend; plaintiffs did not amend, and the court dismissed the action.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged facts sufficient to permit a finding that Barajas’s intoxication arose within the course and scope of employment, allowing respondeat superior liability for the ensuing off-premises automobile collision.
2. Whether statutory limits on civil liability for furnishing alcohol barred a claim against the employer premised on respondeat superior rather than direct “furnishing” liability.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal.
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged facts from which a trier of fact could find a sufficient employment-related connection between the employer-sponsored party, the employee’s intoxication, and the later negligent driving.
- The court held statutory provisions addressing liability for furnishing alcohol did not defeat the pleaded theory, because the claim sought to hold the employer liable for its employee’s tort within the scope of employment.
- The demurrer should have been overruled, allowing the case to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a demurrer, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Respondeat superior may extend to employee conduct tied to the employer’s enterprise where the resulting harm is a foreseeable cost of the business, meaning the conduct is not so unusual or startling that assigning the loss to the employer would be unfair.
- An employer-sponsored event may be sufficiently work-related to support scope-of-employment allegations when it occurs on the premises, during work hours, and employees are paid and expected to attend.
- Employer provision and encouragement of alcohol at a work-related event can support an inference that intoxication (and the attendant risk of an intoxicated employee driving afterward) is a foreseeable incident of the employer’s enterprise.
- Statutes limiting civil liability for furnishing alcohol do not necessarily bar a claim against an employer based on vicarious liability for an employee’s negligent driving, where furnishing alcohol is pleaded to show scope of employment rather than as the direct basis of liability.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations of a paid, employer-sponsored on-premises work party with employer-provided and encouraged drinking were sufficient to permit a jury to find the employee’s intoxication occurred within the scope of employment, and that alcohol-liability statutes did not defeat a respondeat superior theory at the pleading stage.


Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co., 120 Cal. App. 3d 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)