Steven Painter, Tonya Wright, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Earl A. Wright, III, Virginia Weaver, Individually and as Next Friend of Albert A. Carrillo, a Minor, Tabatha P. Rosello, Individually and as Representative v. Sandridge Energy, Inc.
511 S.W.3d 713
Tex. App.2015Background
- Sandridge Energy owned a drilling lease; Amerimex Drilling operated under a daywork contract and was an independent contractor, with Sandridge supervising at the site.
- Crew of Amerimex included Burchett (driller) and Painter, Wright, Carillo as crew members; they commuted to a bunkhouse 30 miles from the well site.
- On July 28, 2007, after a shift, Burchett drove the crew in his personal vehicle to the bunkhouse and collided with another car, killing two crew members and injuring Painter.
- Sandridge paid bonuses (bottom-hole, subsistence, and driller transportation) to Amerimex personnel; these bonuses were routed through Burchett but did not establish trip-by-trip control.
- The trial court granted Sandridge’s traditional/166a summary judgment; the court’s ruling rested on vicarious liability theories (right of control, employment status, and borrowed servant), which the appellate court purported to resolve in Sandridge’s favor.
- The court analyzed whether (i) Sandridge had a contractual or actual right to control Burchett’s transportation, (ii) Burchett was Sandridge’s employee or agent for the transportation, and (iii) Burchett was a borrowed servant, ultimately affirming dismissal of all three avenues for vicarious liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sandridge had contractual or actual right to control Burchett's transportation | Painter argues Sandridge controlled transport via the driving bonus. | Sandridge did not control transport details; bonuses did not prove control. | Issue overruled; no control shown over transport details. |
| Whether Burchett was Sandridge’s employee at the time of the accident | Burchett functioned as Sandridge’s employee or agent under control theory. | Burchett acted as an independent contractor with no control by Sandridge over transport. | Issue overruled; no employment relationship shown over transport. |
| Whether Burchett was Sandridge’s borrowed servant | Burchett operated under Sandridge’s direction for the crew transport. | No evidence Sandridge could direct Burchett’s transport details. | Issue overruled; no borrowed servant relationship found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoechst-Celanese Corp. v. Mendez, 967 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998) (requires nexus between retained supervisory control and the injury activity)
- Tovar v. Amarillo Oil Co., 692 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. 1985) (oil company control over a critical safety provision extended to the injury event)
- Tirres v. El Paso Sand Products, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 672 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991) (control lacking where driver’s actions not dictated by the employer)
- Koch Refining Co. v. Chapa, 11 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. 1999) (whether employer actually controlled the manner of work is a fact issue)