Pierson

Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne Internat. Drilling Co. CA5

Bad Law
2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 899·209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222·4 Cal. App. 5th 608·81 Cal. Comp. Cases 993
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 2016F070379California10,749 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

This appeal presents a question of employer liability under the doctrine of respondeat 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 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.