Loffland Bros. v. Baca, s. 81CA0836
| Decision Date | 06 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81CA0836,81CA0895 and 81CA0896,s. 81CA0836 |
| Citation | 651 P.2d 431 |
| Parties | LOFFLAND BROTHERS, and National Union Fire, Petitioners, v. Mike L. BACA, Richard J. Wise, and Peter Nims, individually and as members of the Industrial Commission of Colorado, Charles McGrath, Director of the Division of Labor, and Steven E. Bounds, Gary Bizer, and Hank E. Cox, Respondents. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Watson, Nathan & Bremer, P. C., Anne Smith Meyers, Peter Watson, Denver, for petitioners.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., William Levis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Com'n of Colorado.
Distel, Homes & Massey, Eddie G. Distel, Grand Junction, for respondents Steven E. Bounds, Gary Bizer and Hank E. Cox.
This action consolidates the workmen's compensation claims of three employees of Loffland Brothers Company injured in a single accident. Loffland Brothers and its insurer challenge the award of benefits. We affirm.
Loffland Brothers engaged in the business of drilling for oil and gas, and it is their practice to have their drilling employees assigned to a driller on a particular drilling rig. The employees are to remain with the driller on a particular drilling site until it is completed. If there is other work available at the completion of that job, they remain in the company's employ. If not, they become unemployed or go to work for another drilling company.
The three employees involved in these claims were hired from a Loffland Brothers office in Colorado to work on a drilling rig in Vernal, Utah. Two had worked for Loffland Brothers on previous jobs, and one was a new employee. Transportation to and from their homes to the drilling site was provided by the driller who transported the employees to the drilling site in his vehicle or in one owned by his wife. The driller was paid on a mileage basis by Loffland Brothers for transporting the other employees to and from the job. If one of the employees was not present at the place where he was to be picked up to go to work, or if the employee elected otherwise, the employee had to furnish his own transportation to and from a job on a particular day.
These three claimants had been working for Loffland Brothers at this particular job site in Utah for approximately 2 months. On April 29, 1980, all three claimants were riding to work in a vehicle driven by the driller and they were all injured in a one-vehicle accident in Utah.
The Industrial Commission ruled that it had jurisdiction over these claims and that the injuries sustained by the claimants arose out of and in the course of their employment with Loffland Brothers Company. We agree with that ruling.
The first issue raised by Loffland Brothers and its insurance carrier is whether the Industrial Commission has any jurisdiction to consider liability for injuries resulting from this accident. We rule that it does.
Section 8-46-204, C.R.S.1973, provides in pertinent part, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Ksi Services, Inc.
...679 S.W.2d 322, 323-24 (Mo.App.1984) (same); Baker v. Saint Francis Hosp., 126 P.3d 602 (Okla.2005) (same); Loffland Bros. v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431, 432-33 (Colo.App.1982) 9. See cases cited supra, note 7. 10. See cases cited supra, note 8. 11. See also Plummer v. Center Psychiatrists, Ltd., 2......
-
Rodriguez v. Permian Drilling Corp..
...an injury incurred en route to an oil rig falls within the traveling employee exception to the going and coming rule. See Loffland Bros., 651 P.2d at 433 (“[W]here the employer required the employees to travel a considerable distance to their job, where there was a benefit to the employer i......
-
Flores v. McKay Oil Corp.
...burdensome as to confer upon Appellants any status beyond that of mere commuters. {28} Appellants' observation that Loffland Bros. v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo.Ct.App. 1982) is specifically related to the oilfield does not assist their position. In Loffland Bros., the Colorado company hired ......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Messina
...cost of commuting to and from work, then the scope of employment broadens to include the employee's transportation. Loffland Brothers v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo.App.1982). The ALJ made a number of factual findings and relied on the evidence to reach the conclusion that Messina had failed t......
-
APPENDIX B
...Id. Guaranty National argued that the trial court had correctly relied upon two workers' compensation cases, Loffland Brothers v. Baca, 651 P.2d 431 (Colo. App. 1982) and Loffland Brothers Co. v. Industrial Commission, 714 P.2d 509 (Colo. App. 1985), to conclude that the employee's injuries......