Waiting for Painter: Travel Case has been Pending in the Supreme court for Nearly Four Months
One year ago, the Texas Supreme Court granted a petition for review in Painter v. Amerimex Drilling, No. 16-120. The case was argued to the full court on December 6, 2017. This means the case has been pending on oral argument for nearly four months. The court can be expected to issue its opinion soon.
Painter involves a travel issue that is regularly seen in workers’ compensation cases, although it is not, itself, a workers’ compensation case. The case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to determine whether that travel issue should be treated differently from the way it would be handled in a workers’ compensation context, or similarly to comp.
In July 2007, three members of a drilling crew from Amerimex had been assigned to work the night shift on an oil and gas drilling rig at the Longfellow Ranch in Pecos County. The drilling site was remote. The company established a bunkhouse near Fort Stockton, some 30 miles from the drilling site. The Contract provides for the Driller to be paid $50.00 per day for transporting the Amerimex Crew between the drilling site and the bunkhouse as a Driver Bonus.
On July 28, 2007, after the Amerimex Crew’s shift ended, Burchett was driving the Crew from the rig site to the bunkhouse. Burchett fell asleep while driving, truck rolled over, and all of the crewmembers were ejected. Two crewmembers died.
The Division of Workers’ Compensation determined Burchett’s injuries were covered by WC “because he was paid to transport his crew to and from the worksite and the company bunkhouse. Moreover, delivering a crew to the worksite each day directly furthered the business interests of Amerimex.”
Representatives of the deceased employees sued Amerimex and the driver, Burchett. The trial court granted Amerimex’s summary judgment motion on the sole ground that Amerimex was not vicariously liable for any negligence of Burchett. The court of appeals affirmed.
Vicarious liability is the doctrine used in law to determine an employer’s liability for the actions of its employees. The Division of Workers’ Compensation found Burchett to have been acting in the course and scope of his employment for purposes of receiving benefits, while the trial court and court of appeals found that he was not acting in the course and scope of his employment for purposes of establishing Amerimex’s liability to the plaintiffs.
FOLIO
