Gomez v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.

Citations: 745 So. 2d 104; 99 La.App. 3 Cir. 521; 1999 La. App. LEXIS 2714; 1999 WL 797985Docket: No. 99-521

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 6, 1999; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In a consolidated workers’ compensation case, Mr. Robert Gomez and Mr. Stanley Sepulvado sued Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. for injuries resulting from a vehicular accident while traveling home after their shift on May 5, 1998. The workers' compensation judge granted Sundowner’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Gomez and Sepulvado were not in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs had been transported from an offshore rig to shore and, during a carpooling stop at Halfway Lounge, consumed significant alcohol before being involved in a collision on Terry Parkway in New Orleans.

Despite filing separate claims for workers’ compensation benefits and later consolidating them, the judge ruled that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the employment scope. An affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs opposing the summary judgment was excluded by the judge, leading to their appeal. The plaintiffs argued that they were still under the supervision of their employer’s representative, Mr. Craig, and cited a previous case to support their claim that this created a genuine issue of fact about their employment status at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court reviewed the case de novo and found no merit in their argument, affirming the summary judgment on the grounds that the evidence did not show they were acting within the course and scope of their employment when the accident occurred.

La.Code Civ. P. art. 966(B) assigns the burden of proof for summary judgment to the moving party, requiring sufficient documentation to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Once the moving party establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must then rebut this showing by proving the existence of an essential element of their claim. The key question in evaluating a trial court's grant of summary judgment is whether genuine issues of material fact remain and whether reasonable minds could agree on the mover's entitlement to judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate when all relevant, undisputed facts are presented and the only remaining question pertains to legal conclusions drawn from these facts. Material facts are those that can determine the legal outcome of the case, and their significance must be assessed within the context of the applicable substantive law.

In this case, it is assessed whether Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sepulvado were injured in the course and scope of their employment with Sundowner. Generally, employees commuting to and from work are not considered to be acting within the scope of employment unless specific exceptions apply. One such exception involves employer-provided transportation or reimbursement for travel expenses. The undisputed facts indicate that at the time of the accident, both Mr. Sepulvado and Mr. Gomez were not on a mission for Sundowner, and the company did not provide or reimburse transportation for them. An affidavit suggesting that another employee, Mr. Craig, was on a mission for Sundowner does not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employment status of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sepulvado at the time of their accident, as their depositions confirm Sundowner's lack of interest in their transportation.

The plaintiffs, Mr. Gomez and Mr. Sepulvado, do not dispute that they were not on a mission for Sundowner during the accident. Their superior, Mr. Craig, may have been acting within the scope of his employment, but this does not apply to them. The record lacks evidence supporting their claim of being under Mr. Craig's work-related direction at the time of the incident. Their pleadings identify them as 'guest passengers' in a van driven by a tool pusher, with no material facts presented in their depositions to support their position. Mr. Sepulvado admitted he was merely 'tagging along' with Mr. Craig and Mr. Whitlow, stating he had no obligation to travel with Mr. Craig. Mr. Gomez described his arrangement with Mr. Craig as a carpool, unrelated to work duties. The plaintiffs' references to prior cases are deemed inappropriate as those circumstances significantly differ; notably, there is no evidence of compensation for travel time or employer interest in their transportation. The plaintiffs failed to present evidence establishing a material fact dispute, unlike the contrasting case of Brown v. Coastal Constr. Eng’g, Inc., where the employee was deemed to be in the course of employment due to employer compensation for travel. Consequently, the workers’ compensation judge's summary judgment is affirmed, with costs attributed to the appellants.