Click here to view article this in our Firm Newsletter
A Southwest Kansas jury returned a $5.2 million verdict for a young man paralyzed when his vehicle was struck by an oil and gas driller on his way home from an overnight shift. Lynn Johnson and David Morantz pursued the case against the driller and his employer, Murfin Drilling Co., Inc. On the morning of June 14, 2005, 16-year-old Paul Logan Clark was driving himself and a friend north from Hugoton in Stevens County, Kan. At the same time, a southbound driller for Murfin was driving two of his crew members home from a rig site in his personal vehicle. The Murfin driller, possibly from fatigue, swerved across the center line. Mr. Clark tried but could not avoid the oncoming pickup truck.
The resulting collision left Mr. Clark paralyzed from the waist down and killed his 14-year-old friend, who was in the passenger seat.
The bulk of the litigation and discovery focused on whether Murfin's driller was in the "scope and course" of his employment at the time of the accident, and thus, whether Murfin was vicariously liable for its driver's negligence.
As discovery ended, Murfin moved for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, the driver was not in the scope and course of employment at the time of the accident. Murfin relied primarily on the "coming and going rule," which holds that employees driving to and from work are typically not in the scope and course of their employment.
Our attorneys filed a cross motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule as matter of law that Murfin's driver was in the scope and course of employment when the accident occurred. Plaintiff's arguments relied on evidence that the driver was making crew members ride with him to and from rig sites and making them transfer their mileage reimbursements to him through Murfin's payroll department.
Plaintiff's arguments also relied on workers compensation documents prepared after
the accident. A third party that Murfin had employed to handle workers compensation
claims determined soon after the accident that Murfin's driller and his crew members should be covered by workers compensation, because the accident occurred while they were on the job.
Deposition testimony established that, under agency law, Murfin had adopted or ratified the determinations of its workers compensation agent and acknowledged that the employees were within the scope and course of their employment.
Plaintiff then argued that principles of equity prohibited Murfin from arguing in a vicarious liability case that its workers were not on the job after taking the position in a workers' compensation matter that the workers were, in fact, on the job-and thus achieving tort immunity from potential suits by injured employees and third parties.
Adopting plaintiff's arguments, the trial court ruled that the driller was in the scope and course of his employment at the time of the accident.
Faced with a possible appeal regarding this issue, plaintiff settled with Murfin for $4 million, plus $50,000 from the driller's private insurance, shortly before the jury returned its verdict.
For attorneys pursuing claims of vicarious liability against employers, this case highlights the importance of pursuing evidence of how companies have handled workers compensation claims. For briefs on this issue, please visit our website.
