Connection lost
Server error
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employee, while filling out a company expense report in his motel room, negligently started a fire by smoking. The court held his employer vicariously liable because the employee’s personal act of smoking was incidental to work-related activities performed within the scope of his employment.
Legal Significance: Establishes that an employee’s minor personal comfort act, like smoking, does not automatically sever the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes if it occurs concurrently with, and is incidental to, job-related duties, especially for employees with broad, 24/7 responsibilities.
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Gatzke, a district manager for defendant Walgreen Company, was supervising a new restaurant opening. Walgreen paid for his motel room at the plaintiff’s Edgewater Motel, which Gatzke used as an “office away from home.” Gatzke was a salaried employee who considered himself a “24-hour-a-day man” with no set work hours. After a long workday, he returned to his motel room around 1:30 a.m. and began filling out a company expense report. The completion of this report served a dual purpose: it allowed Gatzke to be reimbursed and provided Walgreen with necessary documentation for business tax deductions. While completing the form, Gatzke, a heavy smoker, negligently disposed of a cigarette, starting a fire in or near a plastic wastebasket that caused substantial damage to the motel. The jury found Gatzke was negligent and had acted within the scope of his employment, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for Walgreen, concluding the act was outside the scope of employment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an employer be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee, while performing a work-related task, concurrently engages in a personal comfort act like smoking that causes injury to a third party?
Yes. The court reversed the JNOV and reinstated the jury verdict, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur s
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can an employer be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee’s negligence when the employee, while performing a work-related task, concurrently engages in a personal comfort act like smoking that causes injury to a third party?
Conclusion
This case significantly broadened the application of respondeat superior by holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo
Legal Rule
For an employer to be held vicariously liable for an employee's tort, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two parts. First, it established that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employee’s negligent smoking can be within the scope of employment