Smith v Gardener (1998)

Summary of Facts

The defendant James Mike Garderner was involved in a motor accident with the plaintiff

Larry W. Smith. At the time of the incident, the defendant was in a full-time employment

with San Jacinto College. The petitioner sought to claim damages from the college based on

the principle of vicarious liability for actions of an employee or respondeat superior. The

defendant was employed as a full-time baseball coach with the college, and was on a sports

trip along with students. At the time of the accident the defendant was driving an automobile

supplied by the college. However, it is pertinent to note the following circumstances. The

team had a curfew of 11 pm to return to the hotel. At around midnight, the defendant went

out alone in the automobile supplied by the college to get a six-pack of beer. Around 3 am,

after having consumed half of the six pack, the defendant again took the automobile out to

buy some skoal or chewing tobacco. After having bought skoal, the defendant did not return

to the hotel, but went out sightseeing in the car in downtown meridian, where he was

involved in the accident. After an intoxilizer was administered by the police, it was found that

the defendant’s blood alcohol limit was 0.132, with the legal limit being 0.10. It is to be noted

that during both the trips, the first one to buy the beer, and second one to buy skoal, the

defendant was alone, and his fellow colleagues and students were inside the hotel sleeping, as

per the 11pm curfew.

Issue

Since the only matter in dispute here was the liability of the college, the primary issue before

the Court was – Whether vicarious liability could be attached to the college for the acts of the

employee defendant?
Ruling

The Court finally ruled that the college cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the

defendant, who was held to acting a personal capacity.

Rationale

The Court noted that it was settled law, that to make an employer vicariously liable for the

tortious actions of employees, it is essential that when the tortious act occurred, the employee

must have been acting within the scope of their employment, quoting Tichenor v. Roman

Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans (1994).

Now the test of whether a conduct of an employee falls within the scope of their employment,

is whether the employee’s acts were done in the fulfilment of his duties of employment and to

further the interests of his employer, as per Odier v. Sumrall (1978), cited by the court.

On the other hand, if the employee’s actions falls outside the scope of his duties, after the

work day had ended and his tasks already accomplished, if his acts are for a personal purpose

unconnected with the employer’s business, then it cannot be said that the act was done in the

course of the employee’s duties, as per Seedkem South, Inc. v. Lee (1980) and other decisions

cited by the court. As per Odier, liability cannot be attached to the employer if at the time of

the act, the employee had abandoned their employment and their acts were not incidental to

the purposes of their employment. As per Seedkem, the employer-employee relationship

stands temporarily suspended when the employee went about on a frolic of his own.
The court noted, that the team had completed their matches for the day, and the rest of the

team had retired in the hotel room after the 11pm curfew. The defendant undertook both the

journeys alone without informing anyone to buy intoxicants for his personal purpose, which

the Court held, could not ruled as within the purpose of his employment in the capacity of a

coach. Therefore, keeping in mind the legal precedents quoted above, the Court held that the

defendant was acting outside the scope of his employment as if the work day had ended, and

had indeed gone on the trips to engage in a frolic of his own.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the acts should be held to be in the course of

the employment because the whole trip was undertaken for college purposes, and thus the

college should be held responsible for all actions of the employee while in a college trip.

Such an imposition would be unfair on the college as then the college can be made liable for

all acts that too far outside the scope and purposes of the employment which are undertaken

by an employee on his own time considering the long length of the trip.

The Court rejected the argument the plaintiff that obtaining skoal by the defendant should be

considered incidental to his employment as it was a well-known fact baseball teams used

skoal, on the basis that the College showed that NCAA rules banned the use of tobacco, and

that the defendant was clearing acting for own interests only when he went to buy skoal at

3am after drinking beer.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the college should be held vicariously liable

as it was within their contemplation that given the length of the trip, and given that the

college had permitted coaches to use the vans supplied by college at their discretion, that the

vans would be utilized for purposes other than strictly going and coming back from the

sporting venue. The rationale of the Court was that by undertaking a solo trip to buy

intoxicants for himself and then sightseeing in the middle of the night after curfew, the act
could not be in the contemplation by the college and the defendant was clearly acting for

personal purpose.

Significance of case in the sport environment

The case is significant in the sports environment, especially in the area of sports management.

In the professional and semi-professional scene, lot of teams have to go touring outside their

home State, and coaches (especially in college and semi-professional teams who do not have

a dedicated staff) have to undertake additional caretaker responsibilities. This case serves as a

beacon pointing out the nature and limits of the responsibility of such coaches, and also

demonstrate that during such trips, there are moments when coaches act outside the

characteristic of their employment as a coach. This should especially be noted by players and

their family members. In this case, the plaintiff was a third person not connected with the

college. However, it often happens that due to the long-term bond between coaches and

players, they may participate in activities of a personal nature, such as a trip to the bar or a

restaurant (not an official team dinner or such). Therefore, they should be wary that at such

time, they are acting within their personal capacity, and any injury sustained will not be

compensated by the employer, which is a significant concern in case of non-existent or

inadequate personal insurance cover.

Personal response

Personally, I wholly agree with the Court’s decision. The defendant in this case had

undertaken the trips strictly for the personal purpose of obtaining intoxicants, and that also at

3am in the morning. The mere fact that he used a vehicle entrusted to him for official

purposes should not implicate an employer. There are many cases where employers give to
employee’s things like vehicles, or electronics to keep in their care for office use. Implicating

an employer for all acts committed by the employee using those materials on his own

personal time, is unfair, excessively harsh, inequitable, and opens a pandora’s box when the

line between what is considered within the scope of employment, and what is considered

beyond, gets blurred to an indistinguishable degree.

The Court in this case has not addressed the concerns of the college that the acts of the

defendant were violating the college’s policy and also criminal laws of Mississippi against

driving under the influence. Had the Court addressed these issues, it would provide further

elucidation of the criteria of when an act can be considered outside the scope of employment.

Utility of the decision

This decision is useful for organizations such as schools, colleges, sports associations, and

professional sports management organizations. It throws clarity on what is the extent of

vicarious liability faced by the organization for the acts of its employees, what actions are

considered by the court as falling inside and outside the scope of employment. This decision

can prompt organizations to update their contracts with employees and specifically delineate

policies regarding code of conduct to be followed by employees on work trips and outside the

field, the rights and responsibilities of employees regarding the use of company equipment,

and draft a more robust and exhaustive exclusion of liability clause in the employment

contract.

References

Cases
Odier v. Sumrall, 353 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1978)

Seedkem South, Inc. v. Lee, 391 So. 2d 990, 995 (Miss.1980)

Smith v Gardener 998 F. Supp. 708 (S.D. Miss. 1998)

Tichenor v. Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, 32 F.3d 953, 959

(5th Cir. 1994).