A San Diego jury has handed down a $1.5 million verdict that found the franchise owner of a Mission Valley restaurant responsible for the actions of an employee who allegedly got drunk after work and then mowed down a skateboarding Taiwanese exchange student.

Even though the On The Border employee was off the clock at the time, the jury found Friday that he had been acting “within the scope of his employment” while drinking at the Mexican-food restaurant on San Diego’s Camino De La Reina with fellow coworkers, who were also off the clock.

Vincent Quintanilla had changed out of his uniform and was waiting for his tips when a group of clocked-out employees gathered to celebrate his birthday. According to court documents, the celebration at the restaurant lasted nearly three hours on Dec. 8, 2012.

Later that night, around 12:20 a.m., California Highway Patrol officers put out information about a tan sedan that was swerving on Interstate 8 and had exited at College Avenue, court documents stated. Minutes later the driver, later identified as Quintinilla, slammed into Kai-Yen Cheng, who was skating in a Montezuma Road bike lane near Gary Street. Quintanilla drove off, leaving Cheng, who had suffered a broken leg, deep lacerations and scrapes, in the road.

The accident happened not far from San Diego State University, where Cheng had completed his master’s degree two days before.

Officers eventually tracked Quintanilla down, and he pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run driving.

Correction A previous version of this story incorrectly reported Vincent Quintanilla pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor hit-and-run driving. He pleaded guilty to felony hit-and-run driving. This has been corrected, and we apologize for the error.

Experts wonder if the ruling will survive an appeal, and say it could have a big impact if it does.

“It would expand a business’ potential liability that would not only have ramifications on the course of business but also, possibly, on insurance policy,” Dave Carothers, an attorney who specializes in labor and employment law, said Tuesday. “... If it’s upheld, that jury just blew up what ‘course and scope’ (of employment) means.”

Businesses can be held accountable for a negligent employee’s actions if an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment. This generally means an employee is doing something that is expected as part of the job, and, traditionally, the behavior should benefit the employer.

However, according to the instructions given to California jurors, recreational activities can also fall under the scope of employment if they’re carried out with an employer’s express or implied permission and provide a benefit to the employer or are customary.

John Gomez, who represented Cheng, argued Quintanilla negligently consumed alcohol in the course and scope of his employment. He contended the restaurant was responsible because it regularly allowed its employees to drink after work, and their purchases benefit the restaurant monetarily.

But lawyers who represented the On The Border owner argued since Quintanilla was clocked out and paid for his own drinks, he was more of a guest than employee. Attorney Chris Faenza, who represented the franchisee, said according to California law, businesses who sell alcohol to a patron of the proper age can't be held liable, with few exceptions, if that person injures someone later.

"There's no doubt (Quintanilla) was a customer at the time, and that California law.... should have applied," Faenza said.

The jury sided with Cheng, awarding him damages for past and future medical care as well as past and future pain and suffering.

“Mr. Cheng unfortunately paid the price for the culture that had been created at On The Border,” Gomez said in a statement. “...Employees providing co-workers alcohol — knowing they will drive — is a bad idea for many obvious reasons. Work should be work, not a place to hang out and get drunk.”

Carothers said if the verdict is upheld, it could have a ripple effect on business operations and insurance policy, especially for businesses that sell alcohol.

He said he could foresee employers refusing to serve employees after they clock out, and refusing to host employee parties where alcohol is served. It could also lead to changes in insurance policies. Policies may be rewritten to exclude coverage in cases when employees stay to drink off the clock and an incident occurs. “There are probably employers looking at this case now,” Carothers said.

Faenza said the verdict will be appealed.