Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co.

Decision Date06 October 2016
Docket NumberF070379
Citation209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222,4 Cal.App.5th 608
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Brent Dale PIERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HELMERICH & PAYNE INTERNATIONAL DRILLING CO., Defendant and Respondent; Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Intervener and Respondent.

The Law Offices of Young Wooldridge, Bakersfield, Scott D. Howry ; Shernoff Bidart Echeverria Bentley, Beverly Hills, Michael J. Bidart, Claremont, Ricardo Echeverria, Danica Dougherty, Beverly Hills; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey I. Ehrlich for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Cogswell Nakazawa & Chang, Long Beach, Forrest R. Cogswell and Dena S. Aghabeg for Defendant and Respondent.

No appearance for Intervener and Respondent.

OPINION

FRANSON

, J.

This appeal presents a question of employer liability under the doctrine of respondent superior for a traffic accident caused by an oil rig worker driving home after work and providing two other employees with a ride to their employer-paid hotel. Under the going and coming rule, employees traveling to and from work are considered outside the scope of employment and, therefore, employers are not liable for torts committed during the employee's commute. The going and coming rule, however, is subject to many exceptions and plaintiff argues that the employee who caused the traffic accident fell within the special errand exception or the required-vehicle exception.

The question whether to apply the going and coming rule or an exception was presented to the trial court by the employer's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication. The trial court granted the employer's motion based on the facts that (1) the employees were responsible for arranging and paying for transportation from the employer-provided hotel to the jobsite, (2) the employer did not require employees to carpool or rideshare, and (3) the employer did not derive an incidental benefit1 from the ridesharing arrangements of its employees.

We conclude that the undisputed facts establish that the going and coming rule applies in this case. It cannot be reasonably inferred from the undisputed facts that the employer impliedly required or requested the driver to provide transportation to his supervisor between the hotel and the jobsite. The supervisor's requests for such rides were personal in nature and are not reasonably imputed to the employer. Therefore, this case is comparable with other cases in which the going and coming rule was applied to employees who made their own carpooling or ridesharing arrangements. (See Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 254, 262, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 534

(Anderson ) [employee-driver was not engaged in a special errand for employer because he was carpooling—i.e., taking another employee to a park-and-ride lot on his way home]; Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1042, 222 Cal.Rptr. 494 [no employer liability where carpooling was organized informally by individual workers] (Caldwell ).) Consequently, the employer is not liable for the traffic accident under the doctrine of respondent superior.

We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Defendant Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. (H&P) is a Delaware corporation based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. H&P operates oil drilling rigs, including rigs located in south Kern County on an Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) leasehold.

General Practices

During the time relevant to this litigation, H&P operated drilling rigs 24 hours per day at the Oxy leasehold. Each rig had two crews working 12 hours per day for 14 days, followed by 14 days off. Shift changes occurred at 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The 14–day period of work is called a “hitch.”

H&P's scheduling of hitches and shifts makes it feasible for crew members to reside far from the drilling site. H&P also provides employees who live more than two hours away from the rig location with a shared room at a Best Western Heritage Inn located near the intersection of Interstate Highway 5 and Stockdale Highway. Employees make the hotel arrangements through H&P and can request a specific roommate if they wish. Typically, the employees assigned to a room work opposite shifts. H&P employees do not receive a bill for their stay at the hotel because H&P pays the bill directly. Employee spouses are not allowed to stay in the rooms provided by H&P.

Out-of-town employees who stay at the hotel are responsible for arranging and paying for their own transportation between their home and the hotel. For example, a crew member living in Kansas would arrange and pay for his travel to Bakersfield and for the transportation between the airport and the hotel. Similarly, employees are responsible for arranging and paying for their transportation to and from the hotel and jobsite.

Each oil rig is run by a crew of approximately five employees. Positions on the crew include a derrickhand, motorman, pithand, and floorhands. The “driller” acts as the foreman of the crew, supervises the other members, and ensures the rig is run as efficiently as possible. H&P's drillers are not involved in scheduling employees. Drillers are supervised by the rig manager, a position also known as a “toolpusher.”

Oil Rig 261 and Ridesharing

One of the drilling rigs operated by H&P on the Oxy leasehold was called Oil Rig 261. The night shift crew for Oil Rig 261 included defendant Luis Mooney, a floorhand, and Mark Stewart, a motorman. Ruben Ibarra was the crew's driller and, therefore, the supervisor of Mooney, Stewart and other members of the crew. Ibarra and Stewart did not live in the area and stayed at the Best Western during their hitch.

Mooney lived in Bakersfield and provided Ibarra and Stewart with rides to and from the drill site in his personal vehicle, a Ford F250 pickup. Mooney testified that he had given Ibarra a ride at least 50 times. Ibarra testified that he believed he had ridden with Mooney a few dozen times before the accident. Mooney's route from his home to the jobsite took him by the hotel. As pointed out by plaintiff, Mooney's route changed when he gave rides because he would have to turn off of Stockdale Highway and into the parking lot of the hotel to pick up or drop off his passengers. This slight change in route is not relevant in this case. Mooney would have traveled by the accident site on his way to and from work regardless of whether he was providing crew members with a ride to or from the hotel.

The Traffic Accident

On December 12, 2011, after the end of their shift, Mooney was returning home and giving Ibarra and Stewart a ride to the hotel. Mooney also had driven Ibarra and Stewart to work the previous afternoon. At approximately 6:30 a.m., about 13 miles from Oil Rig 261, Mooney's pickup collided with a Chevrolet 2500 pickup driven by plaintiff Brent Pierson. The accident occurred about 0.7 miles east of State Route 33 in an unincorporated area of Kern County when Mooney crossed the double yellow line and into the lane of oncoming traffic at the Y intersection of Reserve Road and Skyline Road.

Both drivers were pinned in their vehicles and extracted by members of the Kern County Fire Department. Mooney sustained major injuries and was transported to Kern Medical Center by Hall Air Ambulance. Pierson, Ibarra, Stewart and the passenger in Pierson's vehicle were taken to Kern Medical Center by ambulance.

Ibarra

Ibarra lived in Pratt, Kansas and commuted to Bakersfield to work his hitch. When coming to California for work, Ibarra stayed at the Best Western provided by H&P. Ibarra arranged his own transportation between Kansas and California and between the airport and the hotel in Bakersfield. Sometimes Ibarra took a taxi cab from the airport to the hotel and sometimes an employee or one of his friends living in Bakersfield would pick him up and take him to the hotel. Ibarra traveled between work and the hotel by getting a ride from one of the other employees staying at the hotel or an employee who drives by it. When riding with Mooney, they sometimes would stop at a convenience store before work. On occasion, they stopped at the Penny Bar in McKittrick after a shift.

Prior to the accident, Ibarra had been provided with rides by the other crew members, Ilico Vasquez (derrickhand), Matt Falvella (pithand) and Rafael Gonzalez (floorhand). If Mooney had not provided Ibarra with a ride on the day of the accident, Ibarra would have asked the other members of the crew for a ride. If Ibarra was unable to obtain a ride from them, he would have arranged for alternate transportation.

No one at H&P advised Ibarra to seek a ride from other H&P employees. It was something Ibarra did to save the personal expense of a taxi ride to and from the airport or to and from the worksite.

Stewart

Stewart lived in Orcutt, California (Santa Barbara County) and was staying at the Best Western for his hitch in December 2011. At the time, Stewart did not have a valid driver's license. A valid driver's license was required to get through the gate onto the Oxy leasehold. Consequently, Stewart was unable to drive past the gate. Prior to the accident, Stewart and Ibarra sometimes rode to work together in Stewart's Camaro and Ibarra would drive when they got to the gate.2 Stewart and Ibarra had an argument that resulted in Stewart getting angry. Stewart testified that “I kicked him out of my car.” Stewart could not drive on the Oxy leasehold and, consequently, he began riding with Mooney between the jobsite and the hotel. Stewart testified that every time he rode with Mooney, Ibarra also was in the vehicle.

Mooney never asked Ibarra or Stewart to reimburse him for the rides. More specifically, Mooney told Stewart that he did not have to pay for riding with him. H&P never reimbursed Mooney, Ibarra or Stewart for the out-of-pocket cost of traveling to and from Oil Rig 261. Similarly, H&P did not pay them for their travel time.

Moving the Oil Rig

Sometimes H&P moves an oil rig during a shift. A rig move...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Newland v. Cnty. of L. A., B277638
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 18, 2018
    ...[employee] had to transit between homes to service more than one home a day"]; compare, e.g., Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608, 629, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 [" Hinojosa [v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456, 501 P.2d 1......
  • Taylor v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 17, 2021
    ...the allegations of their complaint so as to disregard the agency allegations. Relying on Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222, they argue FCS did not fairly identify the issues presented in their complaint and the "mis-characteriz......
  • Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Hart High-Voltage Apparatus Repair & Testing Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 2017
    ...whether PG&E's opposition papers have demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (See Pierson , supra , 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 618, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222.)In summary, HART has not carried its burden of demonstrating grounds that completely dispose of PG&E's cause of action f......
  • Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2018
    ...its many exceptions in the detail provided in other decisions published by this court. (See Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608, 618–624, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222 [overview of going and coming rule]; Lantz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2014) 226 Cal.App.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Employment Law Case Notes
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Labor & Employment Law Review (CLA) No. 31-2, March 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...judgment under review."Going and Coming" Rule Barred Employer Liability for Accident Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling Co., 4 Cal. App. 5th 608 (2016)Luis Mooney, an employee of Helmerich & Payne International Drilling (H&P), was involved in a traffic accident while returning home......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT