Scott v. Hughes, 275 P.3d 890

Accident occurred July 2003 in Stafford County; Hughes drove a crew of four (Hughes, Scott, Wagner, Stein) to Greensburg for Duke Drilling, with Hughes as driller and crew chief.
Plaintiffs Brungardt Scott, Wagner, and Stein (and Scott’s estate) sued Hughes for negligence after the fatal crash and injuries.
Hughes sought summary judgment arguing fellow servant immunity under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act; plaintiffs contested on intoxication and course-and-scope.
The district court initially denied Hughes’ summary judgment and allowed remand on whether intoxication voided immunity; this court reversed and remanded for proper analysis.
On remand, additional discovery occurred; Hughes and Duke Drilling settled the workers compensation claim; trial on the civil claims proceeded.
The jury found Hughes and passengers not in the course and scope; judgment entered for plaintiffs; on appeal, the court held Hughes was entitled to fellow servant immunity as the travel to the site was intrinsic to the job, requiring reversal and remand to dismiss civil claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hughes was acting in the course and scope of employment at the time of the wreck	Scott argues Hughes was not in course since passengers weren’t paid and were asleep	Hughes contends travel to the remote site was intrinsic to the job, so in course	Yes; Hughes was in course and scope; immunity applies
Whether the going-and-coming rule applies or an exception for intrinsic travel governs this case	Travel to the site was not inherent to employment; exceptions do not apply	Travel to the remote drilling site was intrinsic to Hughes’ job and benefits the employer	Intrinsic travel exception applies; going-and-coming rule does not bar immunity
Whether plaintiffs’ civil claims are barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Act	If Hughes lacks immunity, plaintiffs can pursue civil actions	If immunity applies, civil actions are barred	Immunity applies; civil actions barred; remand to dismiss
Whether the district court properly resolved motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law	District court should have denied Hughes’ summary judgment/BL and let trial determine scope	Record shows Hughes was in course and scope as a matter of law	District court erred; Hughes entitled to immunity; judgment vacated

Messenger v. Sage Drilling Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 435 (Kan. App. 1984) (travel as intrinsic to employment; going-and-coming exception recognized)
Mitchell v. Mitchell Drilling Co., 154 Kan. 117 (1939) (travel to a job site can be in the course of employment)
Bell v. A.D. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441 (1953) (assembly of crew travel held within course and scope)
Newman v. Bennett, 212 Kan. 562 (1973) (pumper traveling between sites; travel integral to employment)
LaRue v. Sierra Petroleum Co., 183 Kan. 153 (1958) (derrick man travel home; travel not employment-related)
Rinke v. Bank of America, 282 Kan. 746 (2006) (arising out of and in the course of employment; test for course/scope)
Kindel v. Ferco Rental, Inc., 258 Kan. 272 (1995) (definition of arising out of and in the course of employment)
Sumner v. Meier's Ready Mix, Inc., 282 Kan. 283 (2006) (exception for intrinsic travel in oil/drilling context)