EDGEWATER MOTELS, INC. V. GATZKE
277 N.W.2d 11 (1979)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Edgewater (P), motel, and Gatzke (D), employee, challenged a judgment
from the District Court in favor of Walgreen's (D1) notwithstanding a jury verdict that D
negligently caused a fire in the motel while he was in the scope of his employment. The
motel also sought to set aside a jury finding that it was contributorily negligent.
FACTS: D was an employee of D1. D was in Duluth supervising the opening of a new D1
restaurant. He stayed at P's Motel at D1's expense. D normally would arise at 6:00 a.m. and
work at the restaurant from about 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 or 1:00 a.m. In addition to working at
the restaurant, D remained on call 24 hours per day to handle problems arising in other D1
restaurants located in his district. D thought of himself as a '24 hour a day man.' D's
laundry, living expenses, and entertainment were items of reimbursement. There were no
constraints as to where he would perform his duties or at what time of day they would be
performed. D had worked on the restaurant premises for about seventeen hours. This was the
seventh consecutive day that he put in such long hours. Between 12:00 and 12:30 a.m., D and
others left the restaurant in a company-provided car. Upon arrival at P, D and another
decided to walk across the street to the Bellows restaurant to have a drink. D consumed a
total of four brandy Manhattans, three of which were 'doubles.' They allegedly discussed the
operation of the newly-opened D1 restaurant. D also talked a little about the mixing and
pricing of drinks. The testimony showed that D was interested in learning the bar business
because the new D1 restaurant served liquor. Between 1:15 and 1:30 a.m. they walked back to
P. D acted normal and appeared sober. D went directly to his motel room, and then 'probably'
sat down at a desk to fill out his expense account because that was his habit. It took D no
more than five minutes to fill out the expense form. While completing the expense account he
'probably' smoked a cigarette. D smoked about two packages of cigarettes per day. D then
went to bed, and soon thereafter a fire broke out. The amount of damages was stipulated by
the parties at $330,360. The fire started in, or next to, the plastic wastebasket located to
the side of the desk in D's room. He also stated that the fire was caused by a burning
cigarette or match. The jury found that D's negligence was a direct cause of 60 percent of
the damages sustained by P. The jury determined that the negligent act occurred within the
scope of his employment. D1 moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury findings and, in the
alternative, a new trial. P moved to set aside the jury's findings that P was negligent and
that such negligence was a direct cause of the fire. The district court granted D1's motion
for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that D's negligence did not occur within
the scope of his employment, and denied all other motions.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment