220_C127

DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING IN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT

Commercial Automobile	Doctrine of Respondent Superior
Going and Coming Rule	Negligent Supervision/Entrustment

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) employed Troy Martinez as a directional driller from November 2006 to May 2011. Halliburton assigned a company pickup truck to Martinez in December 2006. His supervisor, Steve Mulholland, gave him a copy of the written policy on vehicle use that stated that company vehicles were not to be used for personal business but could be used to commute between home and work, “and may make a stop directly en route for personal reasons while traveling to and from work.” However, Martinez later stated that Mulholland told him he could run errands and take care of business as long as he was back in time for his next shift.

Martinez lived in Caliente, about 50 miles from Halliburton’s Bakersfield facility, He spent about half his time at the Bakersfield facility and the other half at various oil rig locations. Martinez worked a shift at an oil rig that started at 9:00 p.m. on September 12, 2009 and ended at 9:00 a.m. on September 13, 2009. Afterwards, he got in the company pickup and drove approximately 140 miles to meet his wife and daughter at a car dealership to purchase a vehicle for his wife. However, the deal fell through. The three went to a restaurant and had lunch. Martinez then began his trip back but his vehicle began to fishtail on loose gravel in heavy traffic approximately 20 miles from his destination. He lost control and struck another vehicle, injuring the six plaintiffs that brought this complaint.

The plaintiffs sued Halliburton, Martinez, and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in three separate actions. The suits alleged that Martinez and Halliburton were negligent and that Caltrans was responsible for a dangerous condition of public property that contributed to the accident. The cases were consolidated. Halliburton moved for summary judgment on the complaint. It argued that it was sued on theories of respondeat superior, negligent supervision, and negligent entrustment but that it could not be held liable on any of them because Martinez was not acting within the scope and course of his employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs and Caltrans opposed Halliburton’s motion. The trial court dismissed as hearsay what Martinez said Mulholland told him about personal use of the vehicle. It granted Halliburton’s motion and entered judgment in its favor for the three actions. Three of the plaintiffs and Caltrans appealed.

Notes:

• The doctrine of respondeat superior states that an employer is liable for the torts its employees commit within the course and scope of their employment.
• The going and coming rule states that an employee going to and from work is usually considered outside the scope of his or her employment so that the employer is not responsible for his or her acts.

The appellate court determined that Martinez driving the pickup truck that Halliburton owned was not acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. It ruled that there was no nexus (causal link or connection) between Martinez’s trip and his employment. This meant that the exception under the going and coming rule did not apply to hold Halliburton liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In leaving an oil rig and making a 140-mile trip to another town to meet his wife at a car dealership to sign papers to purchase a vehicle for her, Martinez was not performing any services or running any errands for his employer. Martinez’s supervisor also did not know about the trip until after the accident and the trip was not made to further any of Halliburton’s business activities. In addition, and most notably, the risk of a traffic accident was not a risk inherent to, or typical or broadly incidental to, Halliburton’s enterprise. The court’s final ruling was that Martinez did not act in the scope of his employment and that respondeat superior did not apply. It affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California., California. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Department of Transportation, Defendant and Appellant. Carly Baker, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Defendant and Respondent. Michael Buxbaum, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Defendant and Respondent. F064888 F064935 F064950 Flied October 1, 2013. 220 Cal.App.4th87, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 752