1. Introduce a summary of the case study

2. Describe the applicable laws in detail that are being challenged in this case study

WEEK 5 CASE STUDY Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurants of Oregon Factual Summary Matt Theurer (Theurer), an 18-year-old McDonald's employee, was involved in a severe auto accident one morning after work. Theurer fell asleep at the wheel and crossed over into oncoming traffic. His car struck a van driven by Frederic Faverty. Theurer was killed in the accident and Faverty was seriously injured. The day before the accident, Theurer worked three shifts, for a total of nearly 13 hours, at a McDonald's restaurant. The first shift began after school at 3:30 P.M. and ended at 7:30 P.M. Theurer returned to the restaurant at midnight and worked on a special cleaning project until 5:00 A.M. The final shift of the morning was a continuation of the midnight shift ending at 8:21 A.M. Theurer asked to be excused from his next regular shift and left work, telling the manager he was tired and needed to rest. On five occasions during the week before the accident, Theurer worked at least until 9:00 P.M. On a few nights he worked past 11:00 P.M., and once past midnight. In addition to working for McDonald's, Theurer was involved in a number of extracurricular activities and served in the National Guard. Many of his friends and family believed he worked too much and was not sleeping enough. McDonald's had a policy and was not sleeping enough. McDonald's had a policy of not requiring its high school employees to work past midnight. Additionally, McDonald's policy was to limit the number of shifts worked to two a day. McDonald's controlled the schedules of its employees and knew how many hours each had worked. The plaintiff Faverty settled the potential claims against the representatives of Theurer's estate. He then sued McDonald's, claiming it was responsible for the acts of an employee even away from the work site. Faverty claimed McDonald's should not have allowed Theurer to work so many hours when it knew Theurer would drive home while tired and pose a risk to himself and others. Question for the Court The question for the court was whether McDonald's was responsible for the acts of its employees outside of the job site. McDonalds initially argued it was Theurer's employer and as such was not responsible for his conduct. As the employer, McDonald's argued, it would only be responsible for Theurer's actions on the job site and would be under no duty to control Theurer away from work. Faverty argued McDonald's had an obligation to avoid conduct duty to control Theurer away from work. Faverty argued McDonald's had an obligation to avoid conduct that was unreasonable and created a foreseeable risk of harm to a third party. McDonald's next argued that an Oregon State law set the number of hours an employee could work, and the law was not violated. Faverty argued the law did not apply to restaurants and did not establish a maximum number of hours employees could be required to work