Can employers be liable under respondeat superior for employees' unconventional conduct at company events? Herzog v. Vail Resorts Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed when an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee’s unconventional behavior at a company-sponsored event in Herzog v. Vail Resorts. The case involved a severe injury at a work bowling party and highlights the factual nature of scope of employment determinations under respondeat superior doctrine.

Background and Facts

Vail Resorts organized an official company-sponsored bowling party for employees at the end of ski season. During the party, employees began bowling in creative ways, with some participating in an informal competition to “one-up” each other with unorthodox moves. Joe Ellis, a Vail employee, performed a 360-degree spin move while bowling, causing his ball to fly into an adjacent lane and crush Amy Herzog’s hand against another ball. Herzog, a bowling alley employee, suffered severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries and permanent impairment.

Key Legal Issues

Herzog sued Vail for negligent supervision and respondeat superior. The jury found for Herzog on both claims, awarding over $2 million in damages. Post-trial, the district court granted Vail’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the respondeat superior claim, finding insufficient evidence that Ellis’s specific 360-spin move was motivated by intent to serve Vail’s interest, though it acknowledged Ellis’s attendance at the party could be so motivated.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing that scope of employment questions are inherently factual and “must be submitted to a jury whenever reasonable minds may differ.” Under respondeat superior doctrine, an employee acts within the scope of employment when: (1) the conduct is of the general kind the employee is employed to perform, and (2) the acts were motivated “at least in part” by serving the employer’s interest. The court found the jury could reasonably conclude that Ellis’s unconventional bowling move served the same team-building purpose as his general participation in the company event, rejecting the district court’s attempt to draw a meaningful distinction between bowling generally and bowling in this specific manner.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that scope of employment determinations should rarely be resolved by courts as a matter of law. The “at least in part” motivation standard means employees need not be solely motivated by serving the employer’s interest. Courts should take these questions from juries only when there is simply no competent evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s position. The case also illustrates the high standard for overturning jury damages awards, requiring clear evidence of passion or prejudice rather than mere disagreement with the amount.