## Facts

- A Hawaiian Independent Refinery, Inc. (HIRI) employee, Joshua Rellamas, was recently promoted.
- After work, co-workers held a small promotion celebration on HIRI’s property in a picnic area adjacent to, but outside, the secured refinery worksite.
- Rellamas purchased and brought alcohol to the gathering; he also used marijuana.
- Evidence indicated HIRI barred alcohol inside the plant but tolerated drinking in the picnic area, and management knew such celebrations occurred regularly and were not stopped, in part because they boosted morale.
- After leaving the premises while intoxicated, Rellamas drove, crossed the center line, and collided with another vehicle, killing himself and three occupants of the other car.
- The decedents’ representatives filed wrongful-death actions against HIRI asserting (1) respondeat superior, (2) negligent failure to control, and (3) social host liability.
- The trial court consolidated the actions and granted summary judgment to HIRI on all theories; final judgment was entered under Rule 54(b).

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on respondeat superior because Rellamas’s intoxication and subsequent driving could not, as a matter of law, be within the scope of employment.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on a direct negligence theory that HIRI negligently failed to control Rellamas where alcohol use on HIRI property was allegedly known and foreseeable as creating risk to third parties.
3. Whether Hawaii law permits social host liability for furnishing alcohol to an adult who later injures third parties.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment for HIRI on the social host liability theory.
- Reversed summary judgment for HIRI on respondeat superior because material fact disputes existed about whether the promotion party furthered employer interests and was sufficiently work-related.
- Reversed summary judgment for HIRI on negligent failure to control because material fact disputes existed regarding foreseeability of harm, HIRI’s knowledge of on-premises drinking, and HIRI’s ability to exercise control.
- Remanded for further proceedings on respondeat superior and negligent failure to control.

## Legal Principles

- Hawaii does not recognize social host liability for serving alcohol to adults who later injure third parties.
- Scope of employment for respondeat superior turns on fact-bound questions, including whether the employee’s conduct was at least partly motivated to serve the employer and occurred within authorized time-and-space limits.
- An employer may face direct negligence liability for failure to control an employee when the employer has a sufficient ability to control conduct on its premises and injury to others is reasonably foreseeable.
- Summary judgment is improper where competing inferences can be drawn on employer benefit, employer knowledge, foreseeability, and degree of control.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer’s tolerance of on-premises, work-adjacent drinking events can create triable issues on vicarious liability and negligent control, even though Hawaii bars social host liability for serving alcohol to adults.


Wong-Leong v. Hawaiian Indep. Refinery, Inc., 76 Haw. 433, 879 P.2d 538 (Haw. 1994)