ALEXANDRIA, Va.—The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled in the court case Speedway LLC v. Jarrett, finding Speedway had no legal duty to prevent an employee from driving home from work after she surreptitiously used illegally-obtained prescription drugs before and after arriving at her job. NACS filed an amicus brief in support of Speedway in the case.

New Speedway employee Brandy Liggett was under the influence of illicit drugs when she lost control of her personal vehicle after work; she crossed the centerline of a road and struck decedent Kevin Jarrett’s motorcycle. Jarrett’s estate initially sued Liggett, however, Speedway was later named as a co-defendant.

Liggett had worked for Speedway for just three days. The accident occurred approximately one hour after Liggett’s shift ended—seven miles from work—and after Liggett conducted a personal errand. The plaintiff argued that Speedway had a duty to conduct pre- and post-hiring and at-work drug testing as well as a duty to stop Liggett from leaving the store or driving following a shift at which she appeared tired and disoriented. They also argued that Speedway should not have allowed Liggett to work an hour of overtime on the date of the accident.

The Circuit Court imposed liability on Speedway simply because the employee appeared tired and disoriented at the end of her shift and because Speedway did not stop her from leaving in her own car when her shift ended. Ultimately, after trial, additur and a new trial on loss of household services and solace damages, the Circuit Court entered a judgment of over $2 million against Speedway, holding it 30% at fault for the plaintiff’s damages.

NACS’ amicus brief argued that employers are not insurers for the personal conduct of their employees outside of work. The brief provided a framework for situations in which employers may be liable for an employee’s conduct and showed that the trial court’s ruling is contrary to these principles. An employer may be liable for the actions of its employees when the employer benefits from those actions or creates a risk of harm through its own actions—all of which an employer can control. An employer is not liable for an employee’s negligence outside of work merely because of that person’s association with the business.

The Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, finding:

• For an employer to have had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent an employee from driving her vehicle home after work on the day of the accident, it must have engaged in affirmative conduct, and thereafter realized, or should have realized, that such conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm to another.
• Speedway’s conduct of allowing Liggett to continue working her shift and then work an extra hour past her shift and to leave her unsupervised while watching training videos does not constitute “affirmative conduct” that “created an unreasonable risk of harm to another.” There was no evidence that anyone at Speedway contributed to her state of impairment from drugs by either providing or condoning her consumption of them. Speedway did no more than acquiesce in her determination to drive her own car.
• The court cited rulings in other states involving injuries caused by intoxicated or fatigued employees after work hours, demonstrating that its decision is consistent with accepted tort law. Some of these cases were brought to the court’s attention in our amicus brief.

“The result of this court case is a sigh of relief for the convenience industry,” said Doug Kantor, general counsel, NACS. “The ruling has helped stave off a potentially huge area of liability for c-stores.”