Court Opinion

ID: 9663029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:26:12.571834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:45.024445
License: Public Domain

LOUIS J. CECI, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that there is suffi*65cient evidence to support the verdict in this case finding that Mark Witkowski, the tavern manager, was acting within the scope of his employment. In reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining Janet Beaudry’s conviction, I believe that the record is devoid of evidence to sustain the verdict. I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals which affirmed the defendant’s conviction because I am convinced that, as a matter of law, no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Witkowski was acting within the scope of his employment when he kept the Village Green tavern open after 1:00 a.m. in violation of sec. 125.68 (4) (c), Stats.
We have previously held that a servant is not within the scope of his employment if (a) his acts were different in kind than those authorized by the master, (b) his acts were far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or (c) his acts were too little actuated by a purpose to serve the master. Strack v. Strack, 12 Wis. 2d 537, 541, 107 N.W.2d 632 (1961), citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228(2) (1958), cited with approval in Scott v. Min-Aqua Bats Water Ski Club, 79 Wis. 2d 316, 321, 255 N.W.2d 536 (1977). It is important to note that this test is set out in the disjunctive and not the conjunctive, and, thus, not all three elements must be satisfied before there can be a finding that the servant was outside the scope of his authority.
In conformance with this test, the jury was instructed that,
“ [a] servant or agent is within the scope of his employment when he is performing work or rendering services he was hired to perform and render within the time and space limits of his authority and is actuated by a purpose in serving his employer in doing what he is doing. ...
“A servant or agent is outside the scope of his employment when he deviates or steps aside from the *66prosecution of his master’s business for the purpose of doing an act or rendering a service intended to accomplish an independent purpose of his own, or for some other reason or purpose not related to the business of his employer.”
Unfortunately, the majority fails to evaluate the uncontroverted facts in this case with respect to these three criteria outlined in Strack. In doing so, I conclude that Mark Witkowski was not within the scope of employment when he kept the tavern open after 1:00 a.m.
The first element of the test asks whether Witkowski’s acts were different in kind than those authorized by the defendant. Witkowski stated that one of his duties as a manager included closing the tavern at one o’clock. He testified that Wallace Beaudry never authorized him to stay open after the legal closing time. In fact, he was specifically instructed to close promptly at the legal closing time. Additionally, Witkowski testified, “I knew that Wally would not want me to stay open after hours but I decided to do it anyway.”
Wally Beaudry also testified at the trial. He confirmed Witkowski’s testimony by stating that one of Witkowski’s duties was to follow all the liquor laws of this state and that he never authorized Witkowski to remain open after 1:00 a.m., throw a private party for his friends, or give away liquor.
A thorough review of the trial transcript reveals that this testimony of Witkowski and Wally Beaudry was in no way impeached by the state. The majority admits that this evidence is undisputed. Page 44. This testimony was wrongly ignored by the majority. I conclude that Witkowski was not within his scope of employment, because his act of keeping the tavern open until 3:45 a.m. was not authorized by Mr. or Mrs. Beaudry.
The second element of the test adopted in Strack, 12 Wis. 2d 537, asks whether Witkowski’s acts were *67far beyond the authorized time or space limits. I conclude that Witkowski’s acts were beyond the authorized time limit because, as stated above, there was testimony that Witkowski was not hired to stay open after hours, and, at the time the police arrived at the tavern, it was 3:45 a.m. Witkowski testified that he usually was done with his normal cleanup between 1:15 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. Over two hours passed between the time he should have locked up and left the tavern and the time the police arrived. Although there is no testimony to this fact, it can reasonably be inferred that Witkowski did not expect to get paid for these two hours when he was sitting at the bar and drinking with his friends. It is clear that Witkowski was no longer working at 3:45 a.m. and that his acts were far beyond the time limit authorized by Janet or Wally Beaudry.
The third and final factor to be considered is whether Witkowski’s acts were too little actuated by a purpose to serve the defendant. Not only the direct testimony of Witkowski, but also the circumstantial evidence, provide support for the finding that Witkowski’s acts were in no way intended to further the defendant’s business, but were motivated solely for his own enjoyment and convenience. Witkowski testified that after the other patrons left the Village Green tavern, he was not performing any work duties, but was entertaining his “real good friends.” Witkowski stated,
“I was not trying to benefit Wallace Beaudry by staying open after hours. I was simply using Wally’s tavern to have a private party for my two friends. By staying open for my two friends I was not trying to benefit Wallace Beaudry in any way, rather I was trying to benefit myself by continuing the conversation I had started with my friends.” (Emphasis added.)
The undisputed circumstantial evidence also bears out the fact that Witkowski’s acts were not serving the *68purpose of the defendant. Deputy Sheriff Kenneth Van Ess testified that he arrived at the tavern at 3:45 a.m. Loud music was coming from within the tavern. The door was locked to outside patrons. Witkowski and Pethan were sitting at the bar, and Dickman, a non-employee, was standing behind the bar.1 There were glasses and a bottle of liquor sitting on the bar. Van Ess testified that it was quite apparent that all three men had been drinking. Witkowski was not performing any cleanup or maintenance duties. Finally, Witkowski, Dickman, and Pethan all testified that Witkowski had been charging Dickman and Pethan for drinks before 1:00 a.m. Witkowski testified that he did not charge his friends for drinks after 1:00 a.m. This statement is also confirmed by the testimony of Dickman.2
Based on this testimony, I conclude that Witkowski was not acting within the scope of his authority, because his acts were in no way intended to serve the defendant. The fact that Witkowski gave his employer’s liquor to his friends without charge after 1:00 a.m., when he knew it was illegal and contrary to his authority as a manager of the tavern to stay open after closing hours, strongly supports the conclusion that Witkowski did not intend to further the defendant’s business, but was acting solely for his own enjoyment and convenience. Unfortunately, the majority fails to consider these factors in making its determination.
The majority suggests that there is a possibility that the jury may not have believed the testimony of Witkowski, Dickman, and Pethan merely because their testimony was based on statements given to the defendant’s attorney. I disagree with this assumption, *69because the testimony of these witnesses was in no way impeached and in no way conflicts with the testimony of the other witnesses. However, even if these statements are not considered with respect to this issue, the overwhelming evidence, which is summarized above, supports the conclusion that Witkowski was not acting within the scope of his employment when he kept the tavern open until 3:45 a.m.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the majority’s finding that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Witkowski was within the scope of his authority is contrary to this court’s holding in Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. United Military Supply, 69 Wis. 2d 426, 230 N.W.2d 764 (1975). The Bituminous case involved a fire which broke out in the balcony of the defendant corporation’s building in the area of a stenciling machine. There was testimony that the cause of the fire was the stenciling machine igniting some material either on or in the plates of the machine. The machine was operated by placing a shirt on the lower cloth-covered plate, which did not heat up, a decal on top of the shirt, and lowering the upper hot plate onto the shirt and decal for approximately ten seconds. It was the store’s policy that only two employees were to operate the stencil machine— Louis Sherman, president of the corporation, and Carl Bartolone, officer of the corporation.
At trial, Michael Sherman, son of Louis Sherman, testified that on the day of the fire, he used the stencil machine to make two T-shirts. He was employed by the defendant as a salesman and stock boy. He testified that he did not have permission from anyone to use the machine, and he was aware of the store rule prohibiting use of the machine by the store’s general employees. Michael estimated that he used the machine approximately one hour before the discovery of the fire. The *70jury found that the defendant corporation was negligent and that its negligence was a proximate cause of the fire. The issue on appeal was whether Michael Sherman was acting within the scope of his employment and as an agent of the defendant corporation at the time he used the stenciling machine.
On review, this court reversed the judgment, holding,
“Based upon the evidence we have set forth, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Michael Sherman either left the T-shirts in contact with the hot upper plate of the stenciling machine which was left on, causing the T-shirts to burn, or that the machine was left closed following its use which caused the cloth pad on the lower plate to catch fire.
“Also in consideration of the undisputed testimony, we are of the opinion, as a matter of law, that Michael Sherman was acting outside the scope of his employment and not as an agent of the defendant-corporation at the time he used the machine. Therefore, causal negligence cannot be attributed to the defendant-corporation.” 69 Wis. 2d at 433.
In Bituminous, this court looked to the test adopted in Struck, 12 Wis. 2d 537, to aid in our determination of whether Michael Sherman was acting within his scope of employment when he used the stencil machine. With respect to the first element of the test, i.e., whether Michael’s acts were different in kind than those authorized by the defendant-corporation, we held,
“Michael Sherman, Louis Sherman and Bartolone all testified that there was a standing rule in the store that the machine was not to be used except by Louis Sherman and Bartolone. Michael further testified he knew he was violating the rule when he used the machine, and, in fact, he picked a time when the store was busy so he would not be discovered.” 69 Wis. 2d at 434.
Similarly, in the case at hand there was uncontradicted testimony that Witkowski was not authorized to keep *71the tavern open after the legal closing time, and he was aware of the fact that it was illegal to do so.
In Bituminous, this court did not consider the second criteria of the test, i.e., whether Michael’s acts were far beyond the authorized time or space limits. Although Michael used the stencil machine during his normal work hours and at the defendant corporation’s store, we still held that he was outside his scope of authority. However, in the case at hand, Witkowski’s acts were far beyond the authorized time limit, given the fact that he remained at the tavern with his friends over two' hours after he should have locked the tavern and left for the evening.
Finally, with respect to the third element of the test, i.e., whether Michael’s acts were too little actuated by a purpose to serve the corporation, we concluded,
“Michael testified that he used the machine to make a T-shirt for himself and his girl friend, not for sale or use in the store.” Id.
Similarly, in the case at hand, Witkowski did not intend to further the defendant’s business, but was acting solely for his own enjoyment and convenience.
The majority in the case at hand argues that there is not sufficient evidence, because it is possible that the jury may not have believed the testimony of Witkowski, Dickman, and Pethan. Similarly, the argument was made in Bituminous that this court should uphold the jury’s findings on the basis that the testimony of Michael and Louis Sherman and Bartolone was not truthful. We rejected that argument, holding, *72it could be inferred that Michael was acting within the scope of his employment.” Id. at 434.
*71“The plaintiff, however, has the burden of proof on this issue [of whether Michael was acting within the scope of his employment], Finsland, [57 Wis. 2d at 267], page 272, and cannot sustain that burden of proof solely on the rejection of contrary testimony since no direct or circumstantial evidence was introduced from which
*72Pursuant to our holding in Bituminous, I conclude that there is nothing in the evidence to sustain a finding that Witkowski was acting within the scope of his employment.
The majority’s conclusion in this case is contrary to the precedent set forth in Bituminous, 69 Wis. 2d 426, and it unfairly imposes vicarious liability on the defendant simply because Mark Witkowski was an employee and on the premises at the time the two police officers arrived. However, it has long been established by this court that,
“. . . . it must be appreciated that the element of stepping aside, commonly found in the rule [of agency], does not require any particular period of cessation from the business or going away from the place thereof. A mental attitude of stepping aside, even momentarily, —turning the attention to the accomplishment of a purpose solely outside of that of promoting the object of the employment, effectually breaks the connection between the servant and the master, — leaves no ‘nexus’ between them, as said in the authorities, vital to the latter’s liability.” Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Schreiber, 150 Wis. 42, 59, 135 N.W. 507 (1912).
Such was the case for Mark Witkowski when he decided to have a “private party” after legal closing hours at the tavern.
In conclusion, I would reverse the judgment of conviction because I conclude that as a matter of law, Mark Wit-kowski was outside his scope of employment when he kept the Village Green tavern open until 3:45 a.m., and, further, no jury, acting reasonably, could conclude otherwise. It is apparent that the jury did not apply the uncontroverted facts in this case to the law given in the jury instructions.
For the above-stated reasons, I dissent.

 Dickman later testified that he went behind the bar to get another bottle of liquor.

 Ken Pethan testified that he does not remember if he had anything to drink after 1:00 a.m.