When Is an Employer Responsible for a Coworker's Off-the-Clock Assault? A Minnesota Negligent-Supervision Decision

The Facts

What happened

Custom Fabricating & Repair, Inc. employed both Austin Frederick Hoover and Turf Tye Spicer. The two were working on a project in Zumbrota, Minnesota, and, along with other Custom Fabricating employees, were staying at a hotel about 20 miles from the worksite. Custom Fabricating paid for the lodging because overnight stays were necessary to complete the project, but employees were not required to stay at that particular hotel — they could arrange alternate lodging through the company.

On the evening of August 24, 2021, after work hours, Hoover and other employees gathered in the hotel parking lot to grill food and drink alcohol. By 10:30 p.m., Hoover had consumed at least a dozen alcoholic beverages. Hoover then joked that Spicer was in a “relationship” with his cousin. Spicer overheard the comment, became upset, and confronted Hoover. Spicer punched Hoover, causing him to fall backward and strike his head. Hoover suffered a traumatic brain injury. Spicer was later criminally prosecuted and pleaded guilty to third-degree assault.

The next day, Custom Fabricating began investigating the incident and placed Spicer on unpaid leave. Its investigation concluded that Spicer had violated several company policies, and the company terminated his employment shortly afterward.

In March 2023, Hoover sued Spicer and Custom Fabricating in Olmsted County District Court, alleging assault, battery, negligent supervision, and negligent retention. On September 20, 2023, the district court entered default judgment against Spicer on the assault and battery claims. Custom Fabricating then moved for summary judgment on the negligent-supervision and negligent-retention claims, and the district court granted that motion on both. Hoover appealed only the ruling on his negligent-supervision claim.

The Decision

What the court held

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Custom Fabricating on the negligent-supervision claim, in an opinion authored by Judge Larson (Ross, Presiding Judge; Beane, Judge). See Hoover v. Spicer, No. A26-0054 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 28, 2026). This opinion is nonprecedential. It is not binding authority, although it may be cited for persuasive value as permitted by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hoover as the party against whom judgment was granted. A negligent-supervision claim requires a plaintiff to show that the employee's conduct was foreseeable and that the employer failed to exercise ordinary care in supervising the employee. Here, the parties agreed that Hoover also needed to establish that Spicer's assault occurred within the scope of his employment, and the Court of Appeals treated that element as determinative. Under Minnesota law, an employee acts within the scope of employment for vicarious-liability purposes when the act is related to the employee's duties and occurs within work-related limits of time and place.

Why the hotel wasn't “company premises”

Hoover argued that because Custom Fabricating paid for the hotel, the parking-lot gathering happened on company “premises,” bringing the assault within work-related limits of time and place. The court rejected this argument, drawing on two Minnesota precedents involving after-hours social gatherings among coworkers: a private party attended almost exclusively by coworkers that was not sponsored or supervised by the employer, and a Christmas party held at a saloon after work hours where a supervisor's misconduct was likewise found outside the scope of employment because the employer did not sponsor, organize, or contribute to the event.

The court found the same was true here. Employees, including Hoover, could request alternate lodging arrangements through the company — nothing required them to stay at that specific hotel or to socialize with coworkers in the parking lot. There was no evidence Custom Fabricating organized, sponsored, or supervised the gathering in any way. And as in a separate precedent Hoover cited involving an off-duty shooting between coworkers, the assault here did not occur on the employer's property or involve the employer's equipment. The court concluded that paying for lodging, standing alone, did not convert a voluntary after-hours cookout into a work-sponsored event.

Why the investigation and insurer statements weren't admissions

Hoover also argued that Custom Fabricating had effectively admitted the assault occurred within the scope of Spicer's employment — pointing to statements made during the company's internal investigation and an interrogatory response Custom Fabricating gave its insurer. The court disagreed on both points. It found no authority supporting the idea that findings made during an internal investigation or employee discipline amount to an admission about the legal scope of employment, and noted that prior appellate decisions point the other way. As for the interrogatory response, the court read it as merely characterizing the allegations in Hoover's own complaint, not as Custom Fabricating's own account of what actually happened.

Open Questions

What the court did not decide

Hoover's appeal challenged only the summary judgment on his negligent-supervision claim. He did not appeal the district court's separate dismissal of his negligent-retention claim, so the Court of Appeals did not review it.

The opinion also flags — but does not resolve — an open question in Minnesota law: whether a negligent-supervision plaintiff must always prove the employee's conduct occurred within the scope of employment, or whether liability can instead rest on a different theory tied to the employer's premises or equipment and its ability to control the employee. Applying the scope-of-employment requirement that the parties agreed governed this case, the court concluded that Hoover had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the assault occurred within work-related limits of time and place. In footnote 3, the court separately explained that it would affirm even without a scope-of-employment requirement because the assault occurred neither on Custom Fabricating's property nor at the worksite and did not involve company chattels, or personal property. The court therefore left the broader legal question unresolved.

Because the claims against Spicer individually were resolved by default judgment rather than through appellate review, this decision addresses only Custom Fabricating's potential liability as an employer.

Practical Takeaways

What this means for Minnesota injury claims

• Paying for lodging doesn't automatically make it “company premises.” An employer's decision to cover a hotel bill during out-of-town work does not, by itself, turn an off-duty social gathering into a work-sponsored event.
• Evidence of employer sponsorship or control is often what matters most. Claims like this one tend to turn on whether the employer organized, funded, or directed the specific event — not just whether it happened near employees or during a work trip.
• The ability to choose different arrangements can cut against a claim. Because employees here could have selected alternate lodging, the court treated the hotel as an elective arrangement rather than an extension of the workplace.
• Internal investigation findings against an employee don't establish the employer's own liability. A company's own post-incident policy findings, or discipline of the employee involved, generally should not be assumed to concede legal responsibility for the underlying conduct.
• Every viable theory needs to be preserved on appeal. The dismissal of the negligent-retention claim was left undisturbed here simply because it was not challenged — a reminder that abandoning a claim, even inadvertently, can end it for good.

Related reading from Andrade Law:

• our overview of negligent security premises liability claims, where the question is whether the party in control of a place took reasonable steps against a foreseeable assault
• how civil assault and battery litigation claims hold the person who struck the blow accountable, separately from any claim against an employer
• our case note on Miller v. The Emily Program, where negligence and vicarious-liability claims against an employer for a staff member's abuse turned on which state's courts should hear the case
• our case note on Smith v. Sea Life Minnesota, where a lease and the evidence of who controlled the equipment decided which company could be held responsible for a child's fall
• our case note on Schafer v. Oakwood Community Church, where a claim against the organization running a youth activity turned on whether one teenager's sudden act against another was foreseeable

Case Information

Case information