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. Amerimex Drilling I, LTD.
511 S.W.3d 700
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Amerimex Drilling hired crews to work on a remote drilling site; employer/owner contract provided a $50/day bonus to the driller to transport his crew to/from the site and a company "bunkhouse" 30–40 miles away.
- Crew leader (driller) J.C. Burchett drove his personal truck after a 12-hour shift with employees Wright, Carillo, and Painter as passengers; on the return trip he rear-ended another vehicle, killing two passengers and injuring a third.
- Burchett filed for workers’ compensation; TDI found his injury compensable because transporting the crew furthered Amerimex’s business. Appellants (victims/beneficiaries) sued Amerimex under respondeat superior for vicarious liability.
- Amerimex moved for summary judgment arguing lack of employer control over Burchett’s travel defeated vicarious liability; the trial court granted summary judgment and severed Amerimex, prompting this appeal.
- The court framed the central legal question as whether the standard to prove course-and-scope for vicarious liability differs from the Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically whether proof of employer control is required to impose respondeat superior for travel-related torts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employee driving to/from remote site was acting in course and scope for vicarious liability | Appellants: remote-drilling exception and payment of transport bonus show origination and furtherance of employer’s business; control not required | Amerimex: must show employer had right to control the travel (route, vehicle, driver qualifications) to impose vicarious liability | Held: For respondeat superior, plaintiff must show some employer control over the travel; summary judgment for Amerimex affirmed |
| Whether Worker’s Compensation precedents (Inge/Lopez/Chesnut) automatically establish vicarious liability | Appellants: those cases show travel originated in and furthered employer’s business, creating a fact issue | Amerimex: WC standards differ and are liberally construed for employees; vicarious-liability requires additional control element | Held: WC cases create a fact issue for compensation, but do not eliminate the control requirement for respondeat superior |
| Whether Amerimex exercised or retained control over means/route/driver | Appellants: employer paid bonus and benefited from crew transport, implying control or approval | Amerimex: no evidence it directed route, vehicle, driver qualifications, or enforced driving rules | Held: Record lacked more-than-scintilla evidence of control (route/vehicle/driver/conditions); plaintiffs failed to meet burden |
| Whether special-mission or remote-site exception negates control requirement | Appellants: transporting crew was a special mission furthering business, so control element is unnecessary | Amerimex: special-mission doctrine still requires direction or control over mission details to impose liability | Held: Special-mission status alone insufficient; control over means/route remains necessary to shift risk to employer |
Key Cases Cited
- Seabright Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 465 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2015) (worker servicing remote site whose travel was pursuant to employment held within course and scope for WC)
- Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Inge, 208 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. 1948) (remote drilling-site travel held part of employment for WC where transportation was integral to employment)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chesnut, 539 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1976) (applying Inge to hold driller and crew in course and scope for WC)
- Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. 2006) (employer not liable for off-duty conduct absent employer control)
- St. Joseph Hosp. v. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. 2002) (right to control is central to master–servant relationship and vicarious liability analysis)
- Robertson Tank Lines, Inc. v. Van Cleave, 468 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1971) (course-and-scope requires act be within servant’s general authority and in furtherance of master’s business)