Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation
220 Cal. App. 4th 87
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Troy Martinez, a Halliburton directional driller, was assigned and used a company pickup for work and commutes; Halliburton policy allowed a stop directly en route for personal reasons.
- On Sept. 13, 2009, after finishing a shift on an offshore rig near Seal Beach, Martinez drove ~140 miles to Bakersfield in the company truck to meet his family and attempt to buy his wife a car, then ate lunch.
- Martinez then began returning toward Seal Beach (intending to stop for coveralls and food before his next shift), but about 20 miles south of Bakersfield on I-5 he lost control, crossed the divider and injured six plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued Martinez, Halliburton (respondeat superior, negligent supervision, negligent entrustment), and Caltrans; Halliburton moved for summary judgment arguing Martinez was outside the scope of employment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Halliburton; plaintiffs and Caltrans appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Martinez was engaged in a substantial personal deviation and Halliburton therefore not vicariously liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halliburton is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Martinez’s driving | Martinez’s use of the company truck for commute/return to work (and incidental-benefit to employer) brings the trip within scope | Martinez was on a purely personal trip (140-mile round trip to buy a car); substantial deviation from work duties removes scope | Halliburton not liable; Martinez was on a substantial personal deviation, so respondeat superior doesn’t apply |
| Whether the incidental-benefit (required-vehicle) exception applies | Plaintiffs: employer’s provision of vehicle and ability to use it creates incidental benefit making commute within scope | Halliburton: even if incidental-benefit applies, undisputed facts show Martinez was engaged in purely personal activity and substantially deviated | Court: even assuming incidental-benefit could apply, Martinez’s trip was a marked departure and outside scope |
| Whether a minor/foreseeable deviation standard covers Martinez’s stops | Plaintiffs: return leg to work makes the trip part of commute; foreseeable minor deviations are covered | Halliburton: the trip’s length, purpose, and lack of employer knowledge make it a non-foreseeable, substantial departure | Court: deviation was substantial and not the kind of foreseeable minor stop (Lazar/Hinman distinction) |
| Whether ownership/employment inference (vehicle owned by employer) raises triable issue | Caltrans: employer-owned vehicle and employee driving allows inference of authority/scope | Halliburton: clear, uncontradicted evidence of personal errand dispels that inference as a matter of law | Court: inference insufficient given undisputed facts showing purely personal trip; no triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., 25 Cal.3d 707 (recognizing plaintiff bears burden to show tort occurred within scope of employment)
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (incidental-benefit/going-and-coming exception when travel time is part of workday)
- Lazar v. Thermal Equipment Corp., 148 Cal.App.3d 458 (distinguishing minor deviations from substantial departures from commute)
- Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp., 22 Cal.App.3d 803 (required-vehicle/incidental-benefit exception application)
- Bailey v. Filco, Inc., 48 Cal.App.4th 1552 (foreseeability and nexus requirements for respondeat superior)
- Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 123 Cal.App.3d 133 (scope-of-employment question becomes law where facts undisputed)
- Le Elder v. Rice, 21 Cal.App.4th 1604 (substantial personal deviation removes employer liability)
- Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Support Co., 130 Cal.App.4th 1 (personal trips during assignment not within scope despite employer-related reimbursements)
- Cain v. Marquez, 31 Cal.App.2d 430 (employee on personal errand not acting within scope)
- Gipson v. Davis Realty Co., 215 Cal.App.2d 190 (use of employer vehicle for personal convenience does not by itself impose liability)