892 P.2D 703 (CT. APP. OR. 1995)
Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight …show more content…
5. In our opinion, the dissenting judge makes valid points. The judge states that Theurer was not a minor, but an adult at the time of the accident, and the defendant did not owe any special responsibility to him because he also attended high school. The judge also states Theurer volunteered to work the clean up shift, and McDonald’s did not require Theurer to work on April 5th. Also, Theurer was not on McDonald’s property at the time of the accident. Theurer was on his own time when he drove home from work.
Gacioch v Stroh Brewery Co.
396 N.W.2D 1
Facts: Casimer Gacioch worked for Stroh Brewery in 1947. He began working for Stroh and he was predisposed to alcoholism. Stroh offered unlimited beer to their employees on their breaks. Mr. Gacioch was a machine operator and drank about twelve bottles a day where on the weekends he only drank three or four beers. Stroh Brewery required Mr. Gacioch to sign an agreement stating that he would no longer drink on the job. When Mr. Gacioch continued to drink at work Stroh fired him. Four years after Mr. Gacioch was fired from Stroh’s he pursued workers compensation against Stroh’s stating that he was disabled due to alcoholism.
Procedure: Gacioch v Stroh Brewery Co. was appealed by Stroh. The case then went to the appellant court.
Issues: Is Stroh Brewery responsible for Casimer Gacioch’s alcoholism?
Reasoning: Stroh is not liable for Mr. Gacioch’s alcoholism because