Provision of Vehicle to Employee Not Controlling Factor in Texas Death Benefits Case

The provision by an employer of a company-owned vehicle was insufficient to establish a work-connection between an employee’s fatal vehicle accident and the employment, held a Texas appellate court recently in Steen v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 7986 (7th Dist. Aug. 29, 2019). Moreover, the record supported the decision of a hearing officer that the fatal accident did not occur within the course and scope of the deceased employee’s employment in spite of his survivors’ contention that the deceased employee had been driving a friend to meet with the owner of the business to discuss a potential job at the time of the accident.

Background

Steen worked as a motor-grader operator for a “dirt contracting” company owned by Dorrity. The company provided Steen with a company pickup truck, which he used for both work and personal driving. The company’s office was in Greenwood and evidence indicated employees such as Steen were not required to travel to the office unless their day’s duties required it. Steen sustained fatal injuries in an accident as he drove the truck with a friend, Hansen, riding as a passenger.

A hearing officer found that the fatal accident did not occur within the course and scope of the employment. The decision was affirmed by the appeals panel without opinion. Steen’s widow then challenged the adverse administrative decision by filing a petition for judicial review in district court. After a hearing, the district court rendered judgment affirming the Department's determination.

Going and Coming Rule

The appellate court noted the general rule that transpiration to and from the place of employment is generally excluded from the course and scope of the employment. The court acknowledged an exception to the rule: where, as was the case here, the employee was provided with transportation as part of the employment contract.

The appellate court stressed, however, that even when the transportation is provided by the employer, as was the case here with the provision of the pickup truck by the employer, the employee still had to satisfy the “originate in” and “in furtherance of the employer’s business” elements of the general definition of course and scope of employment.

Evidence Failed to Support Widow’s Argument

The court also noted that the evidence failed to support Steen’s widow’s argument. At the time of the fatal accident, the employer’s business was down and it did not appear to have any open job positions. While Steen had talked with the business owner about hiring his friend, Hansen, there was testimony that Steen had been told that Hansen lacked the skills that the company would need. Moreover, there was evidence that no interview at been calendared. Finally, helping in the hiring processes was clearly not within the normal duties of the deceased, Steen.

The court added that even if the evidence established that Steen’s death occurred while he was traveling under a mistaken impression that his friend would meet with Dorrity, the business owner, and that they might discuss potential employment, the record still did not establish that Steen’s travel had to do with and originated with the work of his employer.