Provision of Company Vehicle to Texas Employee Does Not Necessarily Bring Commute Within Employment

The mere gratuitous furnishing of transportation by the employer to the employee as an accommodation, and not as an integral part of the contract of employment, does not, by itself, establish that the injury originated in the employer's business, held a Texas appellate court in American Home Assur. Co. v. De Los Santos, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9472 (Oct. 30, 2019). Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to conclude as a matter of law that an employee was in the course and scope of the employment when he sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident while driving from his residence to a ranch where he was assigned to work merely on the basis that the vehicle had been provided to him by his employer.

Background

The employee was killed while driving from his residence to a large piece of fenced ranch land that contained a gas lease. The employer furnished the employee with a company-owned truck and paid for work-related fuel expenses. The truck was not for personal use. The employee spent a significant part of his workday traveling to wells and job sites within a designated area known as the Buck Hamilton Ranch. He entered the ranch through the only entrance, a gate where he was signed in by a guard. The employee, who as a salaried employee and was not paid extra for his travel.

The employee’s widow sought workers’ compensation benefits. The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation appeals panel upheld a hearing officer’s finding that the employee was not in the course and scope of the employment at the time of the fatal accident.

The deceased employee’s widow sought review in the state trial court. As noted above, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the widow on the issue of whether the employee’s death arose out of and occurred in the course of the employment.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court reviewed the Texas going and coming rule, which is similar to that employed in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Under that rule, an employee's travel to and from work generally does not originate in the employer's business because the risks to which employees are exposed while traveling to and from work are shared by society as a whole and do not arise as a result of the work of employers.

The court acknowledged, however, that a distinction could be made if the relationship between the travel and the employment was so close that it could fairly be said that the injury had to do with and originated in the work, business, trade or profession of the employer. The court added that this inquiry was satisfied if the employee’s travel was pursuant to express or implied conditions of his employment contract.

Fact-Intensive Analysis

The court continued that Texas courts had generally employed a fact-intensive analysis to determine whether an employee’s travel originated in the employer’s business, focusing on:

• The nature of the employee's job,
• The circumstances of the travel,
• And any other relevant facts.

The court stressed that while evidence that the employer provided or paid for the transportation was probative of whether the employee’s trip originated in the employer’s business, the mere gratuitous furnishing of transportation by the employer to the employee as an accommodation, and not as an integral part of the contract of employment, did not, by itself, establish that the injury originated in the employer’s business.

The appellate court observed that the trial court had been presented with conflicting affidavit evidence as to whether or not the provision of the truck to the deceased employee was merely an accommodation. Granting summary judgment in favor of the widow was, therefore, improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings.