Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. CA5
4 Cal. App. 5th 608
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- H&P operated remote oil rig crews with 14-day hitches and provided a hotel for out-of-area employees; employees arranged and paid their own transport between hotel and jobsite.
- Mooney (floorhand) lived locally and routinely drove his personal truck, giving rides to co-workers Mark Stewart (motorman) and supervisor Ruben Ibarra (driller); Mooney had given Ibarra many rides before the accident.
- After a shift, while driving home and giving Ibarra and Stewart a ride from the hotel, Mooney crossed the centerline and collided with plaintiff Brent Pierson, causing serious injuries.
- Pierson sued Mooney and later added H&P under respondeat superior; H&P moved for summary judgment arguing the going-and-coming rule applied and no exception attached.
- Plaintiff argued triable issues existed under the special-errand and required-vehicle (vehicle‑use/incidental benefit) exceptions; trial court granted summary judgment for H&P and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the going-and-coming rule bars respondeat superior liability | Pierson: Mooney was within scope because supervisor’s ride requests imputed employer authority or otherwise triggered exceptions | H&P: Employees arranged/paid their own transport; no express or implied employer requirement or benefit; ordinary commute | Going-and-coming rule applies; no triable issue that exceptions apply |
| Required-vehicle (implied requirement) exception | Pierson: Implied requirement may be inferred from supervisor status and occasional rig moves | H&P: No express requirement; employees had no repercussions for not giving rides; transport logistics handled privately | No reasonable inference of an implied employer requirement; no triable issue |
| Incidental-benefit exception | Pierson: Employer gained competitive/labor-market benefit by permitting supervisors to be transported by subordinates (e.g., allowing access for an unlicensed worker) | H&P: No payments, no reliance, no special employer action or evidence of actual competitive advantage | No triable issue that H&P received the sort of direct/incidental benefit required to bring commute within scope |
| Special‑errand (business‑errand) exception and imputing supervisor’s request to employer | Pierson: Ibarra’s supervisory role means his ride requests can be imputed to H&P, creating a special errand | H&P: Ibarra’s requests were personal; H&P neither ordered nor sanctioned crew transportation; employees organized rides informally | Ibarra acted on his own behalf; no evidence H&P caused others to believe Ibarra had authority to command transport—no triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 14 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. Ct. App.) (carpooling organized informally does not automatically create employer liability)
- Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc., 176 Cal.App.3d 1028 (Cal. Ct. App.) (informal carpooling by workers does not invoke respondeat superior)
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (Cal. 1970) (employer payments for travel time/expenses can create incidental benefit for course-of-employment analysis)
- Hinojosa v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal.3d 150 (Cal. 1972) (workers’ comp context: regular employer reliance on employee transportation can imply requirement; caution in comparing to tort law)
- Felix v. Asai, 192 Cal.App.3d 926 (Cal. Ct. App.) (vehicle‑use exception framework)
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Transportation, 220 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope-of-employment and vehicle-use/incidental-benefit analysis)
- Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 427 (Cal. Ct. App.) (going-and-coming rule basics and limits)