Fruit v. Schreiner

Supreme Court of Alaska · 1972 · Torts

TortsRespondeat superiorContributory negligenceEmployer liabilityDamagesvicarious liabilityscope of employmententerprise theory

Facts

Schreiner was standing in front of his disabled car with its hood raised when Fruit's car crossed the center line and collided with the front of Schreiner's vehicle, crushing Schreiner's legs and causing catastrophic permanent injuries. Fruit was attending a mandatory Equitable sales convention, had traveled there in his own car under the employer's reimbursement plan, and convention activities included both formal meetings and encouraged informal socializing with invited out-of-state guests. On the night of the accident, Fruit drove from the convention site to Homer believing the guests were at a restaurant there, left immediately when he did not find them, and was returning to the convention headquarters when the collision occurred. Equitable's convention also involved drinking and social events, but Fruit had slept for several hours before the accident and there was little evidence he drank much after waking that night.

Issue

Whether Schreiner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, whether Fruit was acting within the scope of his employment so that Equitable was vicariously liable, whether Equitable could also be held directly liable for planning and conducting the convention, and whether the damages award was excessive.

Rule

On review of denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the verdict stands if fair-minded persons could differ on the underlying facts. For respondeat superior, scope of employment cannot be reduced to employer control alone; the doctrine is justified by enterprise liability and applies when the employee's negligent acts are sufficiently connected to the employer's enterprise that it is just to require the enterprise to bear the loss. A gratuitous provider of alcohol is generally not directly liable to one injured by an intoxicated driver absent additional affirmative acts creating the necessary causal connection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Valley Assurance required its agents to attend a three-day training retreat in Santa Fe and encouraged them to spend evenings talking informally with visiting top producers from Arizona. Late one night, Owen Pierce drove from the lodge to a restaurant in downtown Santa Fe because he believed the visiting producers were there; when he did not find them, he turned around and struck a cyclist while returning to the lodge.

Is North Valley Assurance most likely vicariously liable for Owen's negligence?

Explanation. The majority treated scope of employment as a fact-dependent inquiry grounded in enterprise liability, not solely employer control. Where attendance is required and informal contact with invited business guests is encouraged as part of the enterprise, an employee's trip may fall within scope if it is at least partly business-motivated. Direct control over the precise route is not required, and vicarious liability is distinct from direct negligence.