## Facts

- Robert Matheson worked as a machinist for Otis Engineering Corporation on an evening shift at its Carrollton, Texas plant.
- Matheson had a known history of drinking at work and was observed repeatedly going to the parking lot during the shift to drink from his car.
- Co-workers observed Matheson was visibly impaired, including slurred speech, poor coordination, and difficulty staying on his stool near operating machinery.
- Matheson’s supervisor, Donald Roy, observed Matheson’s condition and was aware of co-workers’ concerns that Matheson should be removed from the machines.
- After Matheson returned from dinner still impaired, Roy suggested Matheson go home, walked him to the parking lot, and allowed him to drive away after Matheson said he could make it home.
- Otis had a nurse’s station for ill or disabled employees, but Matheson was not taken there; Otis did not call a taxi, contact law enforcement, or notify Matheson’s wife.
- About 30 minutes later, roughly three miles from the plant, Matheson crashed into another vehicle, killing Janis Clark and Geraldine Clark; Matheson also died.
- Evidence showed Matheson’s blood-alcohol concentration was 0.268%, a level described as obvious intoxication to an observer.
- The decedents’ husbands sued Otis for wrongful death, alleging Otis negligently sent an obviously intoxicated employee onto the road and thereby caused the fatalities.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer who, because of an employee’s incapacity, affirmatively exercises control over the employee owes a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the employee from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to third persons.
2. Whether the summary-judgment record raised fact issues on breach and proximate cause, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of summary judgment and remanded for trial.
- The court held that when an employer, because of an employee’s incapacity, affirmatively exercises control over the employee, the employer owes a duty to act as a reasonably prudent employer under the same or similar circumstances to prevent unreasonable risk of harm to others.
- The court concluded the evidence permitted a factfinder to determine whether Otis breached that duty and whether any breach proximately caused the deaths, so the case could not be resolved as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Duty is determined by balancing risk, foreseeability, and likelihood of injury against the social utility of the conduct and the burden and consequences of guarding against the injury.
- Although there is generally no duty to rescue, a party who voluntarily undertakes an affirmative course of action affecting another’s interests must act with reasonable care and must not increase the risk of harm.
- An employer is not automatically liable for off-premises employee conduct; the duty recognized here arises when the employer, due to the employee’s incapacity, takes charge and exercises control in a manner that affects public risk.
- In assessing breach and causation, a jury may consider the obviousness of impairment, the employer’s knowledge, and the availability of safer alternatives (e.g., holding the employee, using an on-site nurse, arranging transportation, or contacting family).

## Conclusion

The court recognized a limited negligence duty: when an employer takes control of an incapacitated employee and directs or permits the employee’s departure in a way that foreseeably endangers the public, the employer must act with reasonable care, and disputes over breach and proximate cause ordinarily present fact questions for trial.


Otis Eng’g Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. 1983)