Vicarious Liability and Special Mission before the Texas Supreme Court
In Cameron Int’l Corp. v. Martinez, 662 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2022), the Texas Supreme Court was confronted with an issue over whether an oilfield worker traveling for personal necessities was acting in the course and scope of his employment such that the employer is vicariously liable for the worker’s alleged negligence in connection with a car accident en route.
Cameron International Corporation hired John Mueller for a four-day job at a remote oil well worksite near Orla, Texas. After Mueller’s last contracted workday, his supervisor invited him to eat in Pecos. Mueller drove on his own to eat with his supervisor, fuel his truck, and restock his personal supply of food and water to bring back to the worksite, anticipating contracting for additional work. On his way back, Mueller was involved in a deadly accident. The accident survivors and their estates sued Mueller, Cameron, and others for negligence, and sought to hold Cameron liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Cameron moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for worker travel that it did not control or direct. The trial court granted Cameron’s motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The court of appeals held that a fact issue existed as to whether Mueller was on a special mission in the course and scope of his duties for Cameron at the time of the accident.
Cameron petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the court of appeals erred in interpreting the special mission doctrine too broadly by applying it to a personal errand. The Court agreed and reversed, reinstating the trial court’s judgment in a per curiam opinion. The Court emphasized its recent statements that an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for accidents that occur while a worker conducts personal errands. (Painter v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd., 561 S.W.3d 125 (Tex. 2018), and Leordeanu v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 330 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2010)).
The Court also declined to expand the scope of vicarious liability to match that of workers’ compensation liability, and it reaffirmed past holdings that workers’ compensation liability uses a distinct framework and attaches it in broader situations than common law vicarious liability.
FOLIO
