Kevin N. Malone v. Miami University
| Decision Date | 03 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | 93AP-266,93-LW-3691 |
| Parties | Kevin N. Malone, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Miami University, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Ohio Court of Claims.
Lindhorst & Dreidame, Gary F. Franke and Joy R. Langenbahn, for appellant.
Lee Fisher, Attorney General, Celeste Cook and Catherine M. Cola for appellee.
Jesse Combs, Joan Jessie and Rick Jones were part-time, weekend custodians for appellee, Miami University ("Miami"), who only worked during the school year. On August 19, 1989, the first day back to work, Patrick White, Combs' supervisor, drove Combs and some other employees to an off-campus restaurant, Mac & Joe's, for lunch. When leaving the campus for lunch, employees were required to clock-out. At Mac & Joe's, Combs and Jones consumed some alcoholic beverages. There was no university policy prohibiting employees from consuming alcoholic beverages on their lunch break, although they were prohibited from working in an intoxicated state and from consuming alcohol while on campus.
On their way back to campus, Combs asked White to stop at a drive-thru so that he could buy some cigarettes. Combs went into the drive-thru alone and, with his own money, purchased some cigarettes and some low-alcohol volume rum. Upon their return to campus, White saw Combs remove the bottle of rum from the car; however, he assumed Combs had taken it to his own car.
During the afternoon, White did not see Combs as he was helping his supervisor, Jay Mabry, move some furniture. In the afternoon Jones and Combs were assigned to strip and wax floors in a dining hall. While he was working, Combs mixed the alcohol he had purchased on his lunch hour with the soda in a Sprite can and drank it while working. Jones observed Combs' actions and, although he did not report Combs to White, he left Combs to work by himself because he did not want to be around someone drinking.
At 5:00 p.m., Combs clocked out for the day and, when both Jessie and Jones noticed Combs was visibly intoxicated, they reported it to White. White spoke with Combs in the parking lot and offered to drive him home; however, Combs refused the offer stating that he was fine. Fifteen minutes after Combs left Miami's campus, he was involved in a head-on collision with appellant,Kevin Malone.
On August 16, 1991, appellant filed a complaint against Miami for his personal injuries, alleging that Miami was. negligent in its conduct as the employer of Combs. In essence appellant asserted that Miami should be liable for his injuries since Combs consumed alcoholic beverages on university property and during working hours.
A trial on the issue of liability was held and, on February 1, 1993, the court issued its decision finding that Miami was not legally responsible simply because its employee, with the knowledge of his supervisor, drives home from work intoxicated and, as a result, causes an accident. Appellant now brings this appeal and asserts the following assignment of error:
"The Trial court erred in finding that an employer has no duty to prevent intoxicated employees from causing injury to third persons where the employer creates or contributes to the creation of a hazardous condition by permitting, encouraging or enabling employees to obtain and consume alcoholic beverages on the employer's premises during work hours, and where the employer has actual knowledge that the employee is intoxicated and creates a hazardous or dangerous condition to third persons."
In his assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it found that Miami was not negligent in its conduct with regard to Combs. Appellant asserts that employers have a duty to prevent intoxicated employees from causing injuries to third persons, especially where the employer has actual knowledge that an employee is intoxicated and contributed to that condition by permitting, encouraging or enabling its employees to obtain or consume alcohol on its premises during work hours.
To establish a cause of action in...
To continue reading
Request your trial