Fruit & Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Schreiner

502 P.2d 133 (1972)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Fruit (D), a life insurance salesman, was attending a sales convention of his employer, Equitable (D). Sales employees of the company were required to attend the convention. After discussing with district managers the possibility of transporting the Anchorage insurance salesmen to the convention by bus, the agency manager decided that participants should travel by private transportation and that they would be reimbursed a lump sum for their expenses. Fruit (D) chose to drive his own automobile, accompanied by his wife, another insurance agent, and the wife and child of the latter. Insurance experts from California and Washington attended as guests at the convention. The Alaska salesmen were encouraged to mix freely with these guests to learn as much as possible about sales techniques. Scheduled events included business meetings during morning hours, evening dinners, and at least two cocktail parties. District managers entertained their own sales personnel at other cocktail parties. On the first evening of the convention, Fruit (D) joined the out-of-state guests for drinks and socializing. At other times the participants made occasional visits in small groups to the Salty Dawg Bar located about a half-mile from the convention center. Their partying was loud and disorderly until the early hours of the morning on Friday, July 11, 1969. One of the district managers testified that he complained about the noise to the agency manager. A business meeting on Friday morning proceeded on schedule followed by a cocktail party and hors d'oeuvres in the room and adjoining spaces of the agency manager. Fruit (D) went to the room of an out-of-state guest. By mid-afternoon Fruit (D) was asleep on the floor. That evening, a scheduled cocktail party and seafood dinner on the beach proceeded without Fruit (D) who was still asleep in a room adjacent to that of the out-of-state guest. Around 10 that evening other members of the group awoke Fruit (D) who, accompanied by his wife and two couples, walked to the Salty Dawg Bar and returned shortly. The others were tired and went to bed. Fruit (D) decided to go to the Waterfront Bar and Restaurant where he thought the out-of-state guests were socializing. He could not find them and drove back to the convention center. On the way back P's car was disabled on or immediately off the side of the road. The accident occurred at approximately 2:00 a.m. when Fruit (D) applied his brakes and skidded across the dividing line of the highway, colliding with the front of P's car. The collision crushed P's legs. P suffered an amputation and was permanently crippled. P sued Ds. The jury found Fruit (D) was the proximate cause of the accident; that he was acting and was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Equitable (D). The jury awarded damages of $635,000 against Ds. Ds appealed. Equitable (D) contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Fruit (D) was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.