Mosko v. Raytheon Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that section 315 provides “that a person may have a duty to control the actions of another so as to prevent harm to third parties if a ‘special relation’ exists between the person and the other who should be controlled”
• acknowledging doctrine but finding that it did not apply to impose liability on employer for injuries caused by employee’s intoxicated driving following an employer-sponsored holiday party
• “Travel to and from home to a place of employment generally is not considered within the scope of employment.”
• defendant did not furnish or pay for the alcohol consumed by its employees and there was no showing that the defendant had control over the alcohol
• “An employee’s voluntary attendance at a social event sponsored by his employer,... which was off the employer’s premises and outside of normal working hours, cannot reasonably be viewed as conduct within the scope of his employment”
• corporate defendant which neither purchased nor furnished alcohol not liable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).