The Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of S&G Stores II, LLC, in a case stemming from a fatal car accident. The case, Gergich v. S&G Stores II, L.L.C., involved the estate of William R. Gergich Jr., who died in a crash caused by an intoxicated employee of the convenience store chain. This ruling has implications for how employers manage intoxicated employees and their responsibilities toward third parties.

The case arose from a tragic incident that occurred on May 5, 2022, when Joshua Whitaker, an employee at S&G Stores, drove under the influence and collided with a vehicle driven by William Gergich Jr. Gergich died as a result of the accident, while his passenger, Dakota Thomas, sustained serious injuries. The court's decision highlights the complexities of employer liability when an employee's actions lead to harm outside the workplace.

Background

William R. Gergich Sr. filed the appeal as the administrator of his son's estate, alongside Dakota Thomas, against S&G Stores II, LLC. The dispute centers around whether S&G Stores had a duty to prevent Whitaker from driving while intoxicated after he left the store. The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of S&G Stores on October 9, 2025.

On the day of the accident, Whitaker had been drinking while working at S&G Stores, consuming vodka mixed with a slushie and other alcoholic beverages. Despite being told by his coworkers to go home due to his intoxication, Whitaker left the store and later drove his vehicle, leading to the fatal collision. The court filing revealed that S&G Stores had no formal policy regarding handling intoxicated employees, which became a focal point in the legal arguments.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Thomas J. Osowik, upheld the lower court's ruling, stating that S&G Stores did not have a legal duty to control Whitaker's actions after he left the store. The court noted, "the chain of liability attached to S&G was broken when Whitaker stopped at [his cousin’s] house... for an undisclosed period of time." This decision emphasized that Whitaker was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, which played a crucial role in the court's reasoning.

The court also highlighted that Gergich and Thomas failed to establish that S&G Stores had a duty to protect third parties from Whitaker's actions. The ruling pointed out that Whitaker had successfully driven to his cousin's house after leaving the store and was not under S&G's control when he caused the accident. The court concluded that the employer's responsibility did not extend to actions taken by an off-duty employee in a personal vehicle.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for employers regarding their responsibilities toward employees who may be intoxicated while on duty. The court's decision clarifies that employers are generally not liable for the actions of off-duty employees unless they have assumed control over the employee's conduct. This case may set a precedent for future cases involving employer liability in similar circumstances, potentially limiting the scope of employer responsibility in accidents caused by intoxicated employees.

Furthermore, the ruling underscores the importance of having clear policies and procedures in place for managing intoxicated employees to mitigate risks to the public. Employers may need to consider implementing training programs and guidelines to handle such situations effectively and responsibly.

What's Next

Gergich and Thomas can seek further legal recourse, including the possibility of appealing the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. However, the court's ruling may pose challenges for their case, given the established legal precedents regarding employer liability. Details on any related cases or ongoing legal actions were not available in the court filing.