Michael Chad McDaniel v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-08-900963) Application Overruled.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101112 M i c h a e l Chad McDaniel v. Helmerich & Payne I n t e r n a t i o n a l D r i l l i n g Company Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-08-900963) Court MOORE, J u d g e . Michael judgment Chad M c D a n i e l of the Mobile ("the e m p l o y e e " ) Circuit Court appeals ("the t r i a l denying h i s c l a i m f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s from a court") against 2101112 Helmerich & employer"). Payne We International court. 61 i s the second time t h i s See M c D a n i e l v. H e l m e r i c h f o r workers' motor-vehicle on in case has been b e f o r e J a n u a r y 10, 2008. compensation concluded The e m p l o y e e f i l e d benefits stemming on a M o b i l e 61 So. 3d a t 1092. I d . a t 1095. County by t h e t r i a l The t r i a l a a road this court c o u r t had t h a t t h e employee had f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t one o r more o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s "going from In McDaniel, a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d favor of the employer. this & Payne I n t ' l D r i l l i n g Co., accident that occurred court reversed ("the History So. 3 d 1091 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 0 ) . claim Company reverse. Procedural This Drilling and coming rule," which provides that to the "accidents o c c u r r i n g w h i l e a w o r k e r i s t r a v e l i n g on a p u b l i c r o a d while g o i n g t o o r coming from work g e n e r a l l y f a l l o u t s i d e t h e course o f t h e employment," a p p l i e d i n t h e p r e s e n t This court concluded, case. I d . a t 1093. h o w e v e r , t h a t , when v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e e m p l o y e e , t h e r e was a g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g whether t h e f a c t s of t h e case fell within one o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s 2 t o the going and coming 2101112 rule. I d . a t 1095. filed an amended answer t r i a l was asserting h e l d on June 20, court entered conclusions the Upon remand f r o m t h i s c o u r t , t h e 2011. employer a f f i r m a t i v e defenses. On J u l y 19, 2011, the trial a judgment, w h i c h i n c l u d e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t of law, going and exceptions to the and f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of the employer based coming rule rule and the i n the inapplicability present f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of appeal to t h i s case. court The A of on the employee on A u g u s t 16, 2011. Facts The employee testified that employer, a d r i l l i n g c o n t r a c t o r , time of the Alexandria, accident on January Louisiana. The he began i n May 10, working 2008, he employee The pipes location, trailer assigned rig which and that he t o w h e r e v e r h i s r i g was s e t up was stepped went s t r a i g h t t o work. c r e w s go and drill meant t h a t , when he He the or w e l l s or drilled. a t work, he was out on-site of an t h a t he d r i l l i n g a w e l l and The w e l l i s g o i n g t o be 3 in that been testified the r i g to d r i l l . down t o w h e r e v e r t h e living testified t o open w e l l s t h a t have a l r e a d y employee t e s t i f i e d the was e m p l o y e r i s h i r e d by o i l c o m p a n i e s t o d r i l l h o l e s to place the t h a t , at 2007 and for that on was the r i g crews t h e n stopped, and 2101112 t h e n t h e y remove t h e r i g and go t o t h e n e x t l o c a t i o n for s e t up drilling. The employee testified that he began working f o r the e m p l o y e r as a f l o o r hand, o r a " r o u g h n e c k , " w h i c h r e q u i r e d h i m to take care of the r i g , maintaining and f r e e o f h a z a r d s . i t and k e e p i n g i t c l e a n He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was a r o u g h n e c k f o r a b o u t 2 7-day " h i t c h e s , " w h i c h c o n s i s t o f 7 1 2 - h o u r or shifts, have 7 days position all and t h a t t h e crew w o u l d w o r k f o r 7 d a y s and t h e n off. o f "motor The man," employee generators t o power motors make sure was then which required the t r a n s f e r of f l u i d s , to "tours," the like check d i d not go to the him t o t a k e care f u e l and d i e s e l , r i g ; to they promoted the of to run the o i l i n a l l the down; t o check a i r b l a d d e r s and d r a i n t h e a i r t a n k s f o r a i r c o m p r e s s o r s f o r t h e rig; and to do inspections f o r the manager, o f t h e e q u i p m e n t on t h e r i g . tool pusher, The employee or r i g testified t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o b e i n g p a i d f o r t h e 1 2 - h o u r t o u r s , he was paid and f o r 2 hours a week for attending a n o t h e r h o u r e a c h week f o r a t t e n d i n g safety meetings a weekly s a f e t y meeting. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s a f e t y m e e t i n g s were h e l d e v e r y m o r n i n g before h i s tour went i n t o effect, 4 that those meetings were 2101112 mandatory, and that they typically lasted from 15 to 30 minutes. The e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r p r o v i d e d t h e r i g crew w i t h crew t r a i l e r s it w a n t e d t h e crew on t h e w o r k s i t e . manager i s p r o v i d e d oil t o s t a y i n b u n k s on l o c a t i o n b e c a u s e Additionally, the r i g a t r a i l e r w i t h an o f f i c e inside, and t h e company's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s have t h e i r own trailer outside t h e r i g . G e r a l d Hay, who i s e m p l o y e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r as a r i g manager, testified to them have always stayed on t h a t t h e employer r e n t s t h e crew location. The employee i n t h e crew t r a i l e r s trailers testified d u r i n g a 7-day that hitch. The e m p l o y e e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was n o r m a l l y t h e m o t o r for r i g 79; that the l a s t was an island stacked," assigned 2008. located site"). t o work On that at The the i t s work state water; that c o n t r a c t ; and on r i g 136 date, employee i n Mobile r i g 136 Hatters man l o c a t i o n he h a d b e e n a t w i t h r i g 79 i n Louisiana or l o s t he Pond and Well testified vehicle f r o m h i s home i n L o u i s i a n a arrived at approximately 4:00 a.m. 5 that he "went was then C o u n t y on J a n u a r y the crew i n Creola that r i g 79 trailers ("the 9, were Creola he d r o v e h i s p e r s o n a l to the Creola on J a n u a r y site 9, 2008. and The 2101112 employee t e s t i f i e d t h a t he and t h e r e m a i n i n g r i g crew were " r i g g i n g down," o r d i s a s s e m b l i n g , r i g 136 a t t h e C r e o l a site and p r e p a r i n g t o move t h e r i g t o t h e M a t t i e May S m i t h W e l l i n C h u n c h u l a ( " t h e C h u n c h u l a s i t e " ) , where t h e y w o u l d " r i g up," or reassemble, r i g 136 t o p r e p a r e i t f o r d r i l l i n g a t t h e new site. At t h e e n d o f t h e day on J a n u a r y t h e e m p l o y e e , he was t o l d moved before the 9, 2008, a c c o r d i n g t o t h a t t h e crew t r a i l e r s , r i g itself, were being C h u n c h u l a s i t e and t o go t h e r e t o s l e e p . t r a v e l e d t o the Chunchula s i t e , trailer. 10, in which are s e t up at the He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he where he s t a y e d i n t h e crew A c c o r d i n g t o t h e e m p l o y e e , on t h e m o r n i n g o f J a n u a r y 2008, he a n d t h e o t h e r t h r e e c r e w members who h a d s t a y e d the t r a i l e r approximately were awakened b y t h e d r i l l e r o f h i s crew a t 5:15 o r 5:20 attended a s a f e t y meeting manager f o r r i g 136. a.m., and he conducted The stated that by Joe I s h e e , employer presented the they rig evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a s a f e t y m e e t i n g was n o t h e l d a t t h e C h u n c h u l a site had the morning of January given a recorded 10, 2008, a n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e statement i n w h i c h he h a d s a i d t h a t t h e s a f e t y m e e t i n g was g o i n g t o be h e l d a t t h e C r e o l a s i t e . 6 The 2101112 employee t e s t i f i e d a t t r i a l , however, t h a t t h e s a f e t y m e e t i n g was h e l d a t t h e C h u n c h u l a s i t e . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h e e n d o f t h e s a f e t y m e e t i n g , he was i n s t r u c t e d t o go t o t h e C r e o l a site a n d t h a t he l e f t t h e C h u n c h u l a s i t e a.m., t r a v e l i n g t o t h e C r e o l a s i t e . sometime a f t e r 5:30 He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , during t h a t t r i p , i t was e x t r e m e l y f o g g y , he was t r a v e l i n g on a muddy road in the hazardous. woods, According and the conditions t o t h e employee, were upon extremely leaving the C h u n c h u l a s i t e , he t r a v e l e d down a c l a y r o a d f o r a b o u t a m i l e or a mile and a h a l f , then t r a v e l e d about t h r e e gravel road t o the blacktop road. He t e s t i f i e d miles that, at the end o f t h e g r a v e l r o a d , h i s v e h i c l e s l i d t h r o u g h t h e s t o p at t h e end o f t h e road and a t h r e e - q u a r t e r ton Ford truck c o l l i d e d with the passenger side of h i s v e h i c l e , him sign F-350 causing injuries. The told on a e m p l o y e e a d m i t t e d t h a t no one w o r k i n g on r i g 136 h a d h i m he had to stay i n t h e crew trailer. u n d i s p u t e d t h a t the employer d i d not p r o v i d e a v e h i c l e , p e r diem f o r food o r a n y t h i n g reimbursement, a c e l l u l a r I t was t h e employee w i t h e l s e , m i l e a g e o r gas telephone, a pager, or a r a d i o . 7 2101112 Hay testified that he and I s h e e J a n u a r y 9, 2008, i n t h e t o o l - p u s h e r site spent trailer According of a t the Chunchula a n d t h a t b o t h o f them d r o v e t o t h e C r e o l a s a f e t y meeting that morning. the night site f o r the t o Hay, t h e r i g crew does n o t a l w a y s s t a y i n a crew t r a i l e r . He s t a t e d t h a t crew members may s t a y i n a m o t e l o r a t a g i r l f r i e n d ' s h o u s e o r t h e y may go home t o s l e e p . He t e s t i f i e d that, during a previous r i g move, when a c r e w t r a i l e r was n o t a v a i l a b l e , t h e e m p l o y e r had p a i d f o r t h e r o u g h n e c k s t o s t a y i n a h o t e l . He testified t h a t t h e men t r a v e l i n g f r o m t h e i r homes a l l o w s t h e e m p l o y e r t o do i t s j o b . Hay t e s t i f i e d that, i f t h e employee wanted t o k e e p h i s j o b w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r , he was r e q u i r e d t o t r a v e l t o work on r i g 136 once r i g 79 went i n t o "stack." Standard o f Review " S e c t i o n 2 5 - 5 - 8 1 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s the standard of review i n a workers' compensation case: "'(1) In reviewing the standard of proof s e t f o r t h h e r e i n and o t h e r legal issues, review by t h e Court o f C i v i l A p p e a l s s h a l l be w i t h o u t a p r e s u m p t i o n o f correctness. "'(2) I n r e v i e w i n g p u r e f i n d i n g s o f fact, the f i n d i n g of the c i r c u i t court s h a l l n o t be r e v e r s e d i f t h a t f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . ' 8 2101112 " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s 'evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can reasonably infer the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "'Our review is restricted to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the t r i a l c o u r t ' s factual findings are supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-81(e)(2). T h i s s t a t u t o r i l y mandated s c o p e o f r e v i e w does n o t p e r m i t t h i s c o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment b a s e d on a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l f i n d i n g on the ground t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supports a contrary factual finding; rather, i t p e r m i t s t h i s c o u r t to r e v e r s e the trial court's judgment only i f its factual f i n d i n g i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. See Ex parte M & D Mech. C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . , 725 So. 2d 292 (Ala. 1 9 9 8 ) . A t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence are c o n c l u s i v e i f they are supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. Edwards v. J e s s e S t u t t s , I n c . , 655 So. 2d 1012 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . ' " L a n d e r s v. Lowe's Home C t r s . , I n c . , [14] So. 3d [144, 151] ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . ' T h i s c o u r t ' s r o l e i s not t o reweigh the evidence, but to a f f i r m the judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i f i t s f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and, i f s o , i f t h e c o r r e c t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s a r e drawn therefrom.' B o s t r o m S e a t i n g , I n c . v. A d d e r h o l d , 852 So. 2d 784, 794 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . " M a s t e r B r a n d C a b i n e t s , I n c . v. Ruggs, 10 So. 3d 13, 16-17 Civ. App. 2008). 9 (Ala. 2101112 Discussion For an injury to be compensable under the Alabama W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t ("the A c t ) , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, t h e i n j u r y must be c a u s e d b y "an a c c i d e n t out o f and i n t h e course A l a . Code 1975. o f [ t h e ] employment." The e m p l o y e e a r g u e s on a p p e a l court erred i n concluding of and i n t h e course arising § 25-5-51, that the t r i a l that h i s accident d i d not a r i s e out o f h i s employment w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r . He a s s e r t s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t , b e c a u s e he was a " t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e , " w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f Young v . M u t u a l S a v i n g s Life Insurance the Co., 541 So. 2d 24 (Ala. a c c i d e n t , and h i s r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s , course C i v . App. arose 1989), o u t o f and i n t h e o f h i s employment. I n Young, a t r a v e l i n g s a l e s m a n s u s t a i n e d an i n j u r y on h i s l u n c h b r e a k . 541 So. 2d a t 25. while This court stated, i n pertinent part: "We have h e l d t h a t a c c i d e n t s o c c u r r i n g on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s d u r i n g an e m p l o y e e ' s r e g u l a r l u n c h b r e a k o c c u r i n t h e c o u r s e o f employment. G o l d K i s t , I n c . v. J o n e s , 537 So. 2d 39 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988). A c c o r d i n g t o Professor Larson, t h e term 'premises' ' i n c l u d e s t h e e n t i r e area d e v o t e d by t h e employer t o t h e i n d u s t r y w i t h w h i c h t h e employee i s a s s o c i a t e d . ' 1 L a r s o n Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n Law § 15.41, a t 4-84 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Our r e s e a r c h , h o w e v e r , h a s r e v e a l e d no A l a b a m a c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e t e r m 10 2101112 ' p r e m i s e s ' as i t r e l a t e s t o t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e s . I n the absence of available p r e c e d e n t , we must, t h e r e f o r e , l o o k t o o t h e r s o u r c e s f o r d e f i n i t i v e law. Minnesota's construction of its workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w s s e r v e s as a s o u r c e o f p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y i n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s . B u c h a n a n v. Pankey, 531 So. 2d 1225 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1988) . M i n n e s o t a c o u r t s have a d o p t e d t h e v i e w t h a t a traveling employee i s considered to be conducting h i s e m p l o y e r ' s b u s i n e s s any t i m e he i s i n h i s p r e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y . G u m b r i l l v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 216 M i n n . 351, 13 N.W.2d 16 ( 1 9 4 4 ) . I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t was w i t h i n h i s p r e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y a t t h e time of the a c c i d e n t . I t f o l l o w s then, i n l i g h t of the foregoing authority, t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t was w i t h i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment a t t h e t i m e o f the accident." Id. a t 26. The e m p l o y e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e was n o t a t r a v e l i n g employee, driver as was t h e t r a v e l i n g s a l e s m a n i n Young, o r t h e t r u c k at issue in the only other Alabama case directly d i s c u s s i n g t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e s , Cummings T r u c k i n g Co. v. Dean, 628 So. 2d 902 ( A l a . C i v . App. t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e "was is to employees," the The workers in those cases o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o determine whether as found as t h e t e r m "traveling Thus, we l o o k t o the employee i n the the d e f i n i t i o n of a " t r a v e l i n g 11 court A l t h o u g h b o t h Young and Dean n e i t h e r case d e f i n e d t h a t term. p r e s e n t case f i t s trial not a ' t r a v e l i n g employee' d e f i n e d under Alabama law." referred 1993). employee." 2101112 In Wash. Ball-Foster 2d 133, 177 Glass P.3d Container 692 Co. (2008), v. the Giovanelli, Supreme Court 163 of Washington s t a t e d : " T h e r e a r e two w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d d e f i n i t i o n s o f a t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e . Under L a r s o n ' s f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e r u l e , a t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e i s one 'whose w o r k e n t a i l s t r a v e l away f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r e m i s e s . ' 2 [Arthur] Larson & [Lex K.] Larson, [Larson's W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n Law] § 25.01[ ( 2 0 0 6 ) ] . An a l t e r n a t e d e f i n i t i o n p r o v i d e s : 'A t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e i s one whose j o b r e q u i r e s t r a v e l f r o m p l a c e t o p l a c e o r t o a p l a c e away f r o m a p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e o r t h e e m p l o y e e ' s p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s . ' 2 J o h n P. L u d i n g t o n , Modern W o r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n § 111:15 (Matthew J . Canavan e d . , 1 9 9 3 ) . "The t r a v e l i n g s a l e s p e r s o n and t h e long-haul t r u c k d r i v e r are p r o t o t y p i c a l examples of t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e s . However, w o r k e r s who have no f i x e d s i t e o f employment o r whose b u s i n e s s i s t r a v e l a r e n o t t h e o n l y c a t e g o r i e s o f e m p l o y e e s who f a l l w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n . T r a v e l i n g employees a l s o i n c l u d e those on t e m p o r a r y a s s i g n m e n t a t a f i x e d l o c a t i o n . " 163 Wash. 2d a t 145, 177 P.3d P e r m i a n D r i l l i n g C o r p . , 150 (2011) (treating oil-rig a t 698. N.M. See 164, workers a l s o Rodriguez , 258 as P.3d "traveling 443, v. 448 employees," i . e . , " ' e m p l o y e e s f o r whom t r a v e l i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e i r jobs, such as perform their commute daily those who d u t i e s , as from home travel to different differentiated to a 12 single from locations employees workplace'" to who (quoting 2101112 R a m i r e z v. Dawson P r o d . P a r t n e r s , I n c . , 128 N.M. P.2d 1043, We 1048 agree ( C t . App. with 601, 606, 2000))). the Washington i s not limited Supreme employee traveling s a l e s p e r s o n or a long-haul t r u c k d r i v e r , are employee" In the only two positions to to those Court traveling those 995 which who that work the a as a although "traveling e x c e p t i o n has b e e n p r e v i o u s l y a p p l i e d i n A l a b a m a . Rodriguez v. Supreme C o u r t o f New Permian Drilling Corp., supra, Mexico d i s t i n g u i s h e d t r a v e l i n g employees f r o m mere commuters: " T r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e s a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m 'mere commuters' whose injuries are excluded from compensation under the [Workers' Compensation] A c t [ , N.M. S t a t . Ann. § 52-1-1 e t s e q . ] . See F l o r e s [ v. McKay O i l C o r p . ] , 2008-NMCA-123, 5 27, 144 N.M. 782, 192 P.3d 777. We i m a g i n e a commuter as one who c h o o s e s t o l i v e i n A l b u q u e r q u e o r Tesuque b u t w o r k s i n S a n t a Fe. The commuter has t h e o p t i o n o f l i v i n g and w o r k i n g i n t h e same c i t y , b u t f o r any number o f r e a s o n s c h o o s e s t o t r a v e l some d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n home and work. I n F l o r e s , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s c o n c l u d e d t h a t the o i l r i g workers i n j u r e d w h i l e t r a v e l i n g to the r i g site were commuters, not traveling employees. The C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o u n d t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s d i d n o t a r i s e o u t o f t h e employment b e c a u s e t h e r i g was i n a f i x e d l o c a t i o n , r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e t o t h e w o r k e r s ' r e s i d e n c e s , and b e c a u s e t h e e m p l o y e r d i d n o t p r o v i d e any reimbursement or per diem s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s nor r e q u i r e any o f t h e w o r k e r s t o m a i n t a i n v a l i d l i c e n s e s o r i n s u r a n c e . I d ^ 55 22-24, 2 7 [ , 144 N.M. a t 791-92, 192 P.3d at 786-87]. Traveling employees, in 13 the 2101112 c o n t r a s t , a r e t h o s e who e n c o u n t e r s p e c i a l h a z a r d s on t h e r o a d t h a t c o u l d be a v o i d e d were t r a v e l n o t a n e c e s s a r y component o f t h e employment. ... "The p r i m a r y r e a s o n f o r t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a commuter and a t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e i s t h a t t r a v e l undertaken by a traveling employee provides s u b s t a n t i a l b e n e f i t t o b o t h e m p l o y e e and e m p l o y e r . ' [ T ] h e a c t i v i t y g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e i n j u r y must c o n f e r some b e n e f i t on t h e e m p l o y e r . ' R a m i r e z [ v. Dawson P r o d . P a r t n e r s , I n c . ] , 2000-NMCA-011, 5 16, 128 N.M. 601, [608,] 995 P.2d 1 0 4 3 [ , 1 0 5 0 ] ; see a l s o Kurtis A. Kemper, A p p l i c a t i o n of the 'Mutual B e n e f i t ' D o c t r i n e t o W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C a s e s , 11 A . L . R . 6 t h 351 T a b l e (2006) ( c o m p i l i n g c a s e s ) . 'The b e n e f i t t o t h e e m p l o y e r n e e d n o t be p e c u n i a r y , and may be as i n t a n g i b l e as a w e l l - f e d and w e l l - r e s t e d e m p l o y e e . ' R a m i r e z , 2 00 0-NMCA-011, 5 17, 128 N.M. 601, [608-09,] 995 P.2d 1 0 4 3 [ , 1 0 5 0 - 5 1 ] . "'The r a t i o n a l e b e h i n d t h e t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e r u l e i s t h a t an e m p l o y e e who i s required to travel away f r o m home i s f u r t h e r i n g t h e b u s i n e s s o f h i s e m p l o y e r as he e a t s , s l e e p s , and p e r f o r m s o t h e r a c t s n e c e s s a r y t o h i s h e a l t h and c o m f o r t d u r i n g his travels. In addition, where the employment r e q u i r e s t r a v e l , t h e e m p l o y e e i s c o n s e q u e n t l y e x p o s e d t o h a z a r d s she w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have t h e o p t i o n o f a v o i d i n g . Thus t h e h a z a r d s o f t h e r o u t e become t h e h a z a r d s o f employment. B u t , i t i s n o t m e r e l y t r a v e l on a highway that creates a risk of c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r y ; i f t h a t were s o , e v e r y o r d i n a r y commuter w o u l d be c o v e r e d u n d e r the Act. Rather, i t is the job's r e q u i r e m e n t o f t r a v e l and t h e e m p l o y e r ' s a u t h o r i t y and c o n t r o l i n a s s i g n i n g i t s employees t o d i f f e r e n t work s i t e s that increase the normal risk and render compensable i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d d u r i n g such travel.' 14 2101112 " I d . 5 1 2 [ , 128 N.M. a t 606-07, 995 P.2d a t 1048-49] ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks, c i t a t i o n , and a l t e r a t i o n s omitted)." 150 N.M. a t , 258 P.3d a t 448-49. I n W i l s o n v. G e o r g i a Power Co., 128 Ga. App. 352, 353-54, 196 S.E.2d 693, 694 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , t h e G e o r g i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s n o t e d t h a t t h e w o r k e r s a t i s s u e i n t h a t c a s e "were r e q u i r e d b y t h e i r employment t o lodge a n d work w i t h i n l i m i t e d by t h e n e c e s s i t y employer's job site, an a r e a geographically o f b e i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r work on t h e [and] h e n c e were, i n effect, in c o n t i n u o u s employment, d a y a n d n i g h t , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t [ , Ga. Code Ann. § 34-9-1 e t s e q . ] . " The e m p l o y e e i n t h e p r e s e n t case, i n order t o keep h i s j o b , was r e q u i r e d b y t h e e m p l o y e r t o d r i v e f r o m h i s home i n A l e x a n d r i a , L o u i s i a n a , t o r e p o r t t o r i g 136 i n M o b i l e C o u n t y . The employee t e s t i f i e d that he w o r k e d a 7-day hitch, which c o n s i s t e d o f w o r k i n g 12 h o u r s e a c h d a y f o r 7 c o n s e c u t i v e d a y s . Thus, l i k e i n W i l s o n , t h e e m p l o y e e was " g e o g r a p h i c a l l y limited by t h e n e c e s s i t y o f b e i n g a v a i l a b l e f o r work on t h e e m p l o y e r ' s job site." 128 Ga. App. a t 353-54, 196 S.E.2d employee t e s t i f i e d a t 694. The t h a t t h e home o f f i c e o f t h e e m p l o y e r f r o m w h i c h he w o r k e d , o r h i s " p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s , " was l o c a t e d i n 15 2101112 Tulsa, Oklahoma. Regardless s t a y i n the crew t r a i l e r , employer by o f w h e t h e r he one was a t t h e s i t e o f r i g 136 the employer bunk, f r e e employee would accordance with be and t h e e m p l o y e e was Taking those considered the required r e n t e d and p r o v i d e d by t o s t a y i n a crew t r a i l e r , of charge. was a definitions facts to the invited w i t h an a s s i g n e d into discussed the employee" "traveling account, in in Wilson and R o d r i g u e z and a r g u a b l y a l l t h r e e o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s d i s c u s s e d in Ball-Foster. We c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the employee i n t h i s c a s e meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a " t r a v e l i n g e m p l o y e e , " and, like the salesman i n Young, he was within the course of h i s employment a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a c c i d e n t b e c a u s e he was within the employer's p r e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y , s p e c i f i c a l l y , between the two l o c a t i o n s at which I n G u m b r i l l v. r i g 136 was General Motors N.W.2d 16 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , c i t e d by Court Minnesota of being this observed used. Corp., 216 Minn. 351, c o u r t i n Young, t h e that, although a 13 Supreme traveling e m p l o y e e " i s c o n s i d e r e d as c a r r y i n g on h i s e m p l o y e r ' s business a t any t i m e he i s i n h i s p r e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y , " t h a t e m p l o y e e is not covered by the workmen's special errand or mission begins 16 compensation until that act once errand a is 2101112 completed. 216 M i n n . a t 353, salesman i n t h a t case 13 N.W.2d a t 17. stopped along h i s route I n Young, t h e to eat lunch; a f t e r e a t i n g l u n c h , he g o t o u t o f h i s c a r , n o t i c e d some r i p e b l a c k b e r r i e s a c r o s s t h e r o a d , and, look at the b l a c k b e r r i e s , f e l l r o a d and i n j u r e d h i m s e l f . this court 541 a f t e r c r o s s i n g the road to into a ditch parallel So. 2d a t 26. to the Citing Gumbrill, concluded: "The p o s s i b i l i t y o f s l i p p i n g and f a l l i n g i n t o a roadside d i t c h i s not a hazard p e c u l i a r to a t r a v e l i n g salesman. C l e a r l y the c l a i m a n t , although p r i m a r i l y c a r r y i n g on h i s e m p l o y e r ' s b u s i n e s s , i . e . , he c o n t i n u e d on h i s r o u t e a f t e r t h e f a l l , had d e p a r t e d on h i s own p e r s o n a l e n t e r p r i s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n j u r y . G u m b r i l l v. G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , supra. The i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d h e r e was, t h u s , n o t c a u s a l l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c l a i m a n t ' s employment." 541 2d a t 26-27. We in So. f i n d the present the present enterprise case case had at the time distinguishable. not The employee own personal departed on his injury. He awoke i n t h e of the t r a i l e r p r o v i d e d by t h e e m p l o y e r a t t h e C h u n c h u l a s i t e , crew where r i g 136 w o u l d s h o r t l y be i n o p e r a t i o n , and b e g a n h i s d r i v e t o the Creola presence hazards site where i n A l a b a m a was r i g 136 was beneficial being r i g g e d down. t o t h e e m p l o y e r , and His the o f t h e r o u t e , w h i c h had b e e n s p e c i f i e d by t h e e m p l o y e r 17 2101112 by t h e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e crew t r a i l e r s and t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e rig, the hazards h a d become Young, the i n j u r y connected with o f t h e employment. sustained by t h e employee t h e employee's employment. Unlike i n was We causally conclude, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e " t r a v e l i n g employee" e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s i n this case otherwise benefits. and t h a t the t r i a l court erred i n concluding and i n d e n y i n g t h e employee w o r k e r s ' We r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l compensation c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand the case t o t h e t r i a l the employee's a c c i d e n t arose o u t o f and i n t h e course o f t h e employment c o u r t t o e n t e r a judgment f i n d i n g and t o conduct such further proceedings that as a r e n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n a n d o t h e r b e n e f i t s due the employee under the A c t . 1 REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ., concur. B a s e d on o u r d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l , we d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s t h e r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l . 1 18

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.