Q: Holiday parties – Be merry or be wary?  We’re planning a very nice dinner-dance company holiday party. The attorney on our board is up in arms about potential liability based on a case where he says a hotel was found liable for a terrible drunken driving accident after its annual holiday party. Is that a real risk?

— J.V., Long Beach

A: The attorney most likely is referring to Purton v. Marriott International Inc. Specifically, Marriott Del Mar Hotel held an annual holiday party in December 2009. You know the expression “no good deed goes unpunished”? The party was to thank employees, and to increase camaraderie among them. The plan was to serve just wine and beer, and employees would have two drink tickets.

Instead, hotel managers served hard alcohol to some of the employees, including one who was an off-duty bartender. He had done a bit of drinking before he got to the party, and brought a flask of liquor that hotel managers refilled and shared shots with him (as well as some others). A co-worker drove this person home, but about 20 minutes later he drove the co-worker home (some of the facts are a little fuzzy). Bottom line: He rear-ended another vehicle at 100 mph, killing the driver. His blood-alcohol level was 0.16 (twice the legal limit).

He received a prison sentence, and both he and the Marriott were sued in civil court by the parents of the decedent. The trial court ruled Marriott could not be liable because what this individual did was not in the scope and course of his employment. However, the Court of Appeal reversed, finding that Marriott could be liable on the basis of vicarious liability if the activities that proximately caused the employee to become an “instrumentality of danger to others” occurred: (a) with the employer’s permission and benefited the employer, or (b) constituted a “customary incident of employment.” The court found both.

The Marriott decision clearly raises a concern about the risk of unregulated alcohol consumption at a company party. Precautionary steps include limiting the time for any drinking, prohibiting alcohol completely, precluding “smuggled” alcohol, and enforcing any sensible drink ticket policy.

Q: Can you still be popped for DUI if your blood-alcohol level is less than 0.08 percent?

— G.N., Culver City

A: Yes — it is a question of impairment. While DUI typically involves a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher, there might be other indications — swerving, slurred speech, unsteady gait — that you were sufficiently under the influence that it adversely affected your ability to drive. With less than a 0.08, you have options — perhaps lesser offenses or even a dismissal — that can be pursued, and it may be treated differently by the DMV. But if this occurs, my strong suggestion is seek out qualified counsel to assist you.

Q: Just what is a wet reckless?

— B.G., Gardena

A: This is a phrase that refers to pleading to a charge of reckless driving that was alcohol-related. A plea bargain may occur to reduce a charge of drunken driving, such as where there was no accident, no prior record and the blood-alcohol was borderline. It means lesser penalties, but my understanding is that if there is a future drunken driving conviction, the “wet reckless” will be treated as a prior drunken driving conviction, thus affecting the sentence on that occasion.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 30 years of experience. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email questions and comments to him at RonSesq@aol.com or write to him at Ask The Lawyer, Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 170, Torrance, CA 90503. This column is a summary of the law and not a substitute for legal consultation on any particular case.