318 P.3d 729
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Sherman was injured when he fell over a handrail on an oil rig while working as a toolpusher for Patterson-UTI Drilling Co.
- Cimarex Energy Co. contracted with Patterson to drill the well and provide labor, equipment, and services under Cimarex’s direction, supervision, and control.
- The toolpusher on site was the head Patterson employee; Cimarex had a drilling consultant, Smith, supervising the overall operation.
- Patterson required a 24/7 stay on location for eight days, but Sherman and another Patterson toolpusher, Lem, used a four-days-on/four-days-off rotation; Sherman had worked twelve consecutive days in the relevant period.
- The accident occurred in the early hours of August 8, 2006, when Sherman was awakened by Smith and moved from the doghouse to the bottom of the rig, where he fell.
- Sherman sued Cimarex alleging failure to provide a safe worksite, inadequate safety oversight, excessive supervision, and fatigue-related issues; Cimarex moved for summary judgment arguing no duty owed because it had no awareness of fatigue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cimarex owed a duty to Sherman as the employer of Patterson’s worker | Sherman contends Cimarex had supervisory control creating a duty | Cimarex argues no duty since it did not control or know Sherman’s fatigue | Question of duty is fact-driven; remand for factual development |
| Whether Cimarex’s level of supervisory control over Patterson establishes negligence liability | Control over operations could form breach if not exercised reasonably | Lack of control negates liability; no duty without supervisory control | Issues of fact on whether Cimarex retained control and breached; not decided at summary judgment |
| Whether Cimarex’s knowledge of fatigue and failure to address it constitutes breach and causation | Evidence shows Smith knew of fatigue; Cimarex failed to act | Fatigue knowledge alone not dispositive without duty and breach evidence | Issues of fact on breach and causation; jury to resolve |
| Whether the district court properly applied Restatement § 414 to determine duty | Employer retained supervisory control triggers duty | Duty not established by general right to supervise | Restatement § 414 applicable; questions of supervisors’ extent of control are factual |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. Cillessen & Son, Inc., 105 N.M. 575 (1987-NMSC-015) (extent of employer control creates factual questions precluding summary judgment)
- Pollard v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 119 N.M. 783, 895 P.2d 683 (1995-NMCA-038) (control retained by employer determines duty; is fact-based)
- Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 120 N.M. 430, 902 P.2d 1033 (1995-NMCA-069) (extent/nature of duty depends on degree of control; fact-based)
- Tipton v. Texaco, Inc., 103 N.M. 689, 712 P.2d 1351 (1985-NMSC-108) (duty varies with degree of control over work details; fact-based)