Faverty v, McDonald’s Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.,
892 P.2d 703
Parties:
Plaintiff: Frederic M. Faverty
Defendant: McDonald’s Restaurants of Oregon, Inc.
Procedure History: The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Facts: McDonald’s informal policy did not permit high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or allow split shifts. Additionally, students were only permitted to work a scheduled special cleanup project that went from 12:00 a.m. to 05:00 a.m. on the weekend or during Spring Break. Furthermore, McDonald’s policy does not permit employees working two shifts in one day.
McDonalds didn’t have enough regular employees scheduled for a special…show more content… Theurer had knowledge of the number of hours Mr. Theurer worked, which violated multiple policies in place by McDonald’s, including the use of a high school student for no more than one shift after midnight, working the cleanup project outside of a weekend or holiday, and working no more than one shift in one day. McDonalds also had knowledge that Mr. Theurer was fatigued after working so many hours and knew that he normally drove his own car to and from work. Hence, the defendant knew or should have known that Theurer’s ability to drive would be impaired.
A volunteering of hours does not negate an employer’s duty. McDonald’s knew of the hours worked by Mr. Theurer and witnessed his fatigued state and continued to work him as scheduled. The defendant, much like a bartender who serves an intoxicated individual another drink is liable for the consequences of the subsequent accident, McDonald’s is liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Faverty in the crash.
Furthermore, McDonald’s admitted allowing Mr. Theurer to volunteer to and work around the clock three full days without any rest of sleep might indicate affirmative misconduct, albeit a matter of degrees.
Lastly, the request by the defendant, the dissent, and the amid curiae to reverse the trial court’s judgement on the public policy that the result is unreasonable, shocking and farfetched, and goes beyond the routine application of tort law, will not be considered as it was not made to the trial
