Rodriguez v. PERMIAN DRILLING CORP.
258 P.3d 443
N.M.2011Background
- Permian Drilling workers Rodriguez, Doporto, Lucas, and Turrubiates traveled to a mobile drilling rig in Hobbs, NM; Rodriguez acted as crew leader and driver, transporting crew to the rig.
- The drilling rigs are mobile and relocated about every 7–8 days; travel to remote sites is common, and lodging may be provided if remote.
- Crew travel is not written as a mandatory policy, but is industry practice; driller receives mileage payment and must maintain license/insurance; crew is paid on shift, not for travel time.
- An early-morning trip from Hobbs to the rig site ended in a single-car accident, killing Doporto and injuring others.
- The Workers filed claims under the Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing they were traveling employees; the WCJ dismissed the claims as not within the course of employment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Rodriguez’s travel did not fall within the traveling employee exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the travel to the rig site fits the traveling employee exception | Workers say travel is an integral, mutually beneficial part of employment | Permian contends travel is a commute not arising from employment duties | Yes; workers are traveling employees; injuries arose in the course of employment |
| Whether mutual benefit and zone of special danger exist | Travel provided mutual benefit and posed job-specific hazards | Travel hazards were not special or beyond ordinary commuting | Yes; mutual benefit and zone of special danger established |
| Whether the going-and-coming rule applies or is overridden by travel exception | The travelling requirement overrides commuting exclusion | Injury occurred during commute not employment-related | Travel exception applies; injuries compensable |
| Whether the WCJ and Court of Appeals erred in applying the traveling employee exception | Record shows travel was integral and hazardous due to employment | Record did not show the required special hazards or mutual benefit | Reversed; Workers’ injuries compensable; remand for proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. Dawson Prod. Partners, Inc., 128 N.M. 601 (2000-NMCA-011) (traveling employee considerations; per diem and transportation duties suffice for coverage)
- Flores v. McKay Oil Corp., 144 N.M. 782 (2008-NMCA-123) (factors for traveling employee analysis; zone of danger and scope of employment considered)
- Barrington v. Johnn Drilling Co., 181 P.2d 166 (1947-NM) (going-and-coming rule and transportation provided by employer; travel may be within employment)