Appeal court rules judge made error, tosses out $300,000 in damages awarded to receptionist who drove home drunk following office Christmas party
The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the decision that awarded $300,000 in damages to a woman who drove home drunk following her office Christmas party.
A three-judge panel tossed out the award, ruling that it was up to a jury — not a judge — to determine how far employers must go to stop intoxicated employees from driving.
Linda Hunt crashed her car in a snowstorm near Barrie, Ont. in 1994, seriously injuring herself. In the original trial, Justice Claire Marchand, found Hunt’s employer, Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc., partly responsible for the crash on the grounds it should not have had an open and unsupervised bar.
The open bar made it impossible for the firm’s managers to monitor the alcohol consumption of employees, Marchand said. The company should have known she was intoxicated and refused to serve her.
Hunt said her co-workers and staff should have physically restrained her from driving, and therefore were partly responsible. At least one employee of Sutton offered to drive Hunt home, but she refused. The employer also made taxi cabs available, but she declined a ride. After leaving the party, Hunt drove to a pub where she had more to drink. She also sued the pub.
In the appeal court ruling, Justice Allan Austin said Marchand made an error in discharging the jury. Marchand dismissed the jury shortly before the last witness following a request from Hunt’s lawyers, who argued the case was too complex for the jury and public hostility towards the trial might taint the decision.
In his written submissions, Marchand suggested he wouldn’t have enough time to properly prepare the jury, and would have a hard time properly explaining the law.
“I find the trial judge erred in considering the length of time it would take to prepare to charge the jury, in failing to consider splitting the trial, and in giving weight to the difficulty he would have in instructing the jury as to matters of law,” said Austin. “These are errors of law.”
The appeal court ordered a new trial on both liability and damages.
A three-judge panel tossed out the award, ruling that it was up to a jury — not a judge — to determine how far employers must go to stop intoxicated employees from driving.
Linda Hunt crashed her car in a snowstorm near Barrie, Ont. in 1994, seriously injuring herself. In the original trial, Justice Claire Marchand, found Hunt’s employer, Sutton Group Incentive Realty Inc., partly responsible for the crash on the grounds it should not have had an open and unsupervised bar.
The open bar made it impossible for the firm’s managers to monitor the alcohol consumption of employees, Marchand said. The company should have known she was intoxicated and refused to serve her.
Hunt said her co-workers and staff should have physically restrained her from driving, and therefore were partly responsible. At least one employee of Sutton offered to drive Hunt home, but she refused. The employer also made taxi cabs available, but she declined a ride. After leaving the party, Hunt drove to a pub where she had more to drink. She also sued the pub.
In the appeal court ruling, Justice Allan Austin said Marchand made an error in discharging the jury. Marchand dismissed the jury shortly before the last witness following a request from Hunt’s lawyers, who argued the case was too complex for the jury and public hostility towards the trial might taint the decision.
In his written submissions, Marchand suggested he wouldn’t have enough time to properly prepare the jury, and would have a hard time properly explaining the law.
“I find the trial judge erred in considering the length of time it would take to prepare to charge the jury, in failing to consider splitting the trial, and in giving weight to the difficulty he would have in instructing the jury as to matters of law,” said Austin. “These are errors of law.”
The appeal court ordered a new trial on both liability and damages.
