This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Three oil field workers, employed by Dawson Production Partners, were injured in a car accident while traveling from their work site in Mentone, Texas, to their homes in Hobbs, New Mexico. The workers were part of a crew working on a prolonged operation, and the employer had agreed to provide a per diem for lodging and meals but required workers to arrange their own transportation. The accident occurred when the vehicle, driven by one of the workers, suffered a tire blowout, causing it to roll over. One worker died, and the others sustained serious injuries (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Workers' Compensation Administration: The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) awarded benefits to two workers under the "traveling employee exception" to the "going-and-coming rule" but denied benefits to the third worker. The WCJ also reduced the awarded benefits for violations of company safety policies and statutory regulations (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Employer/Insurer-Appellants/Cross-Appellees: Argued that the "traveling employee exception" should not apply and that the workers were not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident. They also contended that the workers' violations of safety policies justified reductions in benefits (paras 7-8, 23-24).
- Worker-Appellees/Cross-Appellants: Asserted that the injuries occurred within the course and scope of employment under the "traveling employee exception" and challenged the reductions in benefits, arguing that the violations did not cause the injuries (paras 6, 23-24).
Legal Issues
- Whether the "traveling employee exception" to the "going-and-coming rule" applied to the workers' injuries (para 7).
- Whether the reductions in compensation for alleged safety violations were justified under the Workers' Compensation Act (paras 22-24).
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the award of benefits to two workers under the "traveling employee exception" but denied benefits to the third worker (paras 18-20).
- The Court reversed the reductions in benefits for alcohol consumption and failure to wear seat belts but upheld the reduction for speeding (paras 23-25).
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Bosson and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Traveling Employee Exception: The Court held that the "traveling employee exception" applied because the workers' travel was integral to their employment. The deceased worker and one injured worker were traveling for purposes that benefitted the employer, such as ensuring rest and transporting uniforms for laundering. The third worker, however, was not traveling for a purpose that benefitted the employer and was therefore outside the scope of employment (paras 11-20).
Reduction in Benefits: The Court found no evidence that alcohol consumption or failure to wear seat belts caused the injuries, rejecting the reductions based on these factors. However, the reduction for speeding was upheld because it was a statutory violation that contributed to the accident (paras 22-25).
Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Act requires evenhanded construction, balancing the interests of workers and employers, and recognized the unique risks faced by traveling employees (paras 8-9).