Question

Employment Relationships.  Matt Theurer, an eighteen-year-old high school senior, worked part-time at a McDonald’s restaurant in Oregon. Theurer volunteered to work an extra shift one day, in addition to his regular shifts (one preceding and one following the extra shift). After working about twelve hours during a twenty-four-hour period, Theurer told the manager that he was tired and asked to be excused from his next regularly scheduled shift so that he could rest. The manager agreed. While driving home from work, Theurer fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a van driven by Frederic Faverty. Theurer died, and Faverty was severely injured. Faverty sued McDonald’s, alleging, among other things, that McDonald’s had been negligent in per­mitting Theurer to drive a car when it should have known that he was too tired to drive safely. Do employers have a duty to prevent fatigued employees from driving home from work? Why? Should such a duty be imposed on them? Why? How should the court decide this issue? Explain How would you decide the issue if you were the judge? Explain

Answer 1

Employers don’t have an obligation to people in general to screen workers employees for fatigue or to prevent off-duty employees from driving while fatigued. Employers should give resting areas on location to workers who don't trust they can drive securely, yet can't retain an employee who trusts himself skillful to drive.

Finding that employers have such an obligation would have serious negative results

Firstly, employers would have to monitor employees for fatigue- perhaps prompting to violation of employee’s right to privacy;

Secondly, employers would need to keep fatigued employees from leaving - possibly leading to violence if the worker requests to leave and the employer restrains them from leaving;

Thirdly, it would allow employees to not take responsibility and make employer liable for their wrong actions;

Fourthly, perceiving an expansive obligation this would open the entryways for deft prosecutors to unfairly go after employers solely because they are the "profound pockets."

Usually Courts would not impose tort liability on employers for the actions of their off-duty, off-premises employees.

If I would have to judge this case I definitely would take a different view on this. Stress in workplace is a major issue to be considered in this case. If the accident caused is out of the stress the employee was undergoing definitely the employers have to take a part of the liability of that happened. Employers definitely should have a good transportation facility to be provided for their employee under these conditions.