AUSTIN, Texas (Legal Newsline) - The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit by relatives of two men who blamed an oilfield-services company for a fatal accident involving a contract employee who was running personal errands at the time.
Ruling in a unanimous per curium decision without oral arguments, the Supreme Court held that with narrow exceptions, employers are generally not liable for what happens when workers are driving around on their own time.
John Mueller was working at the ConocoPhillips “Blue Marlin” well near Orla, Texas in 2015 as a contractor to Cameron International Corp. when he drove in his personal truck to Pecos, about 60 miles away. After dinner with his supervisor, he bought food and drink at a store and was returning to the Cameron trailer at the drill site when he got into a head-on collision with a car driven by Javier Mayagoitia Jr.
Mayagoitia and another man were killed and their relatives sued Cameron for vicarious liability.
The plaintiffs claimed Mueller was on a “special mission” for Cameron in part because he purchased water that he might share with coworkers on the hot drillsite. A trial court dismissed the case but an appeals court overruled, saying it was a fact question for a jury to decide whether Mueller’s trip constituted “a necessary service in furtherance of Cameron’s business.”
The Texas Supreme Court decided in a similar case in 2018 that an employee driving coworkers to an oilfield bunkhouse triggered the “special mission” exception since he was transporting other employees to a company-owned building.
In this case, Cameron didn’t direct Mueller to drive to Pecos or purchase anything for other workers or the worksite generally, however. The court of appeals opined that “surely, having access to drinking water during a 12-hour shift, in hundred-degree weather, at a remote worksite, was necessary and benefited Cameron.” But the Supreme Court said by that reasoning, “nearly every task that supports a worker’s personal needs, including travel to and from work, indirectly benefits the employer.”
The plaintiffs argued Mueller sometimes shared his water with coworkers. But the choice to share personal supplies “does not transform their acquisition into a special mission for the employer,” the court ruled. The court also rejected the argument Cameron was liable because it paid Mueller a $250 travel allowance, saying that didn’t overcome the “undisputed evidence” Mueller was returning from personal errands.
Finally, the court rejected a comparison to workers’ compensation law, where employees have been compensated for accidents that occurred while they were walking to work or on personal errands in a company vehicle. Workers’ comp is by design more liberal than tort law, the court said.
“We hold that a personal trip for groceries does not fall within the special‑mission exception to the general rule that an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent acts while the employee travels to and from work,” the court concluded.