Court of Appeals of Kansas· 8/10/2001

Prugue v. Monley

Citations

28 P.3d 1046
29 Kan. App. 2d 635
2001 Kan. App. LEXIS 771

How courts have described this case

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

affirming summary judgment where defendant had “no reason to believe [employee] was unfit.”
affirming summary judgment in favor of employer on vicarious liability claim where “the facts simply do not indicate that [the activity in question] was within the scope of [the employee’s] employment” and the employee’s behavior benefitted only himself
finding no liability under § 324A where bar owner adopted employee alcohol policy to minimize litigation and no evidence suggested that bar adopted policy to protect third parties from injuries inflicted by its intoxicated employees
employment manual’s prohibition of drinking on duty does not constitute employer undertaking to protect third parties from foreseeable risks created by bar manager’s alcohol consumption
employment manual's prohibition of drinking on duty does not constitute employer undertaking to protect third parties from foreseeable risks created by bar manager's alcohol consumption
whether a legal duty exists is a question of law subject to unlimited review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marquardt, Johnson, Jackson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.