Employer Hired Drunk Taxi Driver for Worker – Then This Happened

A court revived a case involving an employee who was injured after a drunk taxi driver – hired by her employer – got into an accident.

Manoucheka Francois worked as a train conductor for the Metro-North Commuter Railroad.

Late one night after her shift ended, the railroad hired a taxi to take her from the end of the train line back to work headquarters.

When Francois first entered the taxi, everything seemed fine. But as the trip proceeded, she saw that the driver was speeding and losing control of the vehicle.

Drunk Taxi Driver Ends Up in Ditch

The taxi crashed into a ditch, and Francois was hurt.

When a police officer responded to the crash scene, the taxi driver admitted that he had consumed four or five shots about an hour before he got behind the wheel. He flunked a field sobriety test, and he was later convicted of driving while impaired.

Francois said the accident was Metro-North’s fault. She sued it for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), which makes railroad employers liable for some employee injuries.

She asserted two theories of liability. First, she said the employer was directly liable for negligently hiring an impaired driver. Second, she alleged that the employer was vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent driving.

Lower Court Rules for Employer

A lower court ruled for the employer as to both of those theories.

As to the first theory, it ruled that Francois could not prevail because she did not produce evidence showing Metro-North could have known that the driver would drink before transporting her.

As to the second theory, it said no reasonable jury could find that the driver was acting as Metro-North’s agent when he drove while impaired by alcohol. Metro-North’s goal of safely transporting Francois was not furthered by the driver’s decision to drink before driving, it noted.

Francois appealed the lower court’s ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Appeals Court Explains the Rules

The appeals court explained that under FELA, railroads are liable for injuries to their employees that are caused by the negligence of any of their officers, agents or employees. To win, injured employees must prove duty, breach foreseeability and causation, which are the traditional elements of negligence that must be established.

It further explained that when determining whether there has been negligence under FELA, the standard of proof is more relaxed than it is in negligence cases that do not involve FELA – and that a strong policy favors letting jurors make the decision.

The reviewing court then determined that the lower court properly ruled for Metro-North on Francois’ theory that the employer was directly liable for her injuries. This theory was not viable because the employer had no notice that the taxi driver would make the decision to drive while he was impaired.

There was simply no evidence that Metro-North either knew or should have known that the driver would drive while he was impaired, the court said.

Appeals Court Revives Second Theory

The reviewing court also decided that the lower court should not have rejected the claim that Metro-North was vicariously liable for the driver’s driving.

Metro-North admitted that the driver acted as its agent, and it did not argue that the taxi company that dispatched the driver severed the agency relationship between it and the driver. In addition, it admitted that the driver drove negligently.

A reasonable juror could find that the driver’s core act of taking Francois back to work headquarters was within the scope of his agency, the court said. Whether he acted within that scope and whether his impairment affected the agency relationship were questions for a jury to decide, it said.

Finally, the court ruled that a fact issue was present as to the foreseeability to Metro-North of a general risk of harm.

The decision was affirmed as to the direct liability theory and vacated as to the vicarious liability theory.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Francois v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co., 107 F.4th 67 (2d Cir. 2024).