An intoxicated person who causes injury to another will almost always be liable to the injured party for any damages. If that intoxicated person injures someone on the job, his or her employer may also be liable. Certain federal laws and regulations and the legal doctrines of respondeat superior and negligent retention may impose liability on the employer.
- As a general rule, one person is under no duty to control the conduct of another person.
- Certain laws and legal theories impose a duty on employers to control the conduct of their employees under certain circumstances.
- An employer may be responsible for injuries caused by employees under the influence of drugs or alcohol under federal law and under the legal theories of respondeat superior and negligent retention.
An intoxicated employee is a danger to him or herself and others on the job. As a general rule, one person is under no duty to control the conduct of another person (even one that is intoxicated). However, the employer-employee relationship often imposes a duty on the employer to control the conduct of its employees.
Federal Law
Although Texas law does not require employers to institute drug or alcohol testing, federal law does impose such a requirement on certain employers. For example, companies awarded certain federal government contracts and companies involved in commercial or public transportation are required to have a “drug-free” work environment. Companies that fail to do so may be responsible for fines and penalties as well as for any resulting damages caused by intoxicated employees.
Respondeat Superior
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior an employer is liable for a tort committed by an employee acting “within the scope of employment.” The doctrine is also known as “vicarious liability” because the employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s tort.
Thus, if an intoxicated employee injures a coworker or a third party acting “within the scope of employment,” the employer may be liable even if the employer did not know of the employee’s intoxication. For example, if an intoxicated delivery driver injures someone while on his or her delivery route, the employer may be liable for that person’s damages.
Negligent Retention
An employer may also be liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated employee under the theory of negligent retention. Under this theory, if an employer knows or should have known an intoxicated employee posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others, the employer may be liable for damages caused by that employee.
Under certain circumstances, an employer is even responsible for actions of an employee outside the scope of employment. In the Texas case Otis Engineering Corporation v. Clark, the Texas Supreme Court held: “when, because of an employee’s incapacity, an employer exercises control over the employee, the employer has a duty to take such action as a reasonably prudent employer under the same or similar circumstances would take to prevent the employee from causing an unreasonable risk of harm to others.”
In Otis, an employee with a history of drinking on the job showed up to work intoxicated, stumbling, and slurring his words. His employer told him to go home and escorted him to his car. On his way home, the intoxicated employee caused a fatal traffic accident. Even though the employee was not acting “within the scope of employment,” the Court found the employer liable for damages caused by the intoxicated employee because the employer had taken steps to control the conduct of the employee by sending him home and escorting him to his car.
Written by:
Linda K. Leibfarth
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldge 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
