There’s strong evidence that Mo-Vac Service Company, an oilfield trucking outfit, engaged in egregious behavior during drilling boom times eight years ago, according to the Texas Supreme Court. The company allegedly forced drivers to work excessive hours and told them to falsify driving logs. A senior manager was said to have shrugged off warnings that one of its drivers was likely to fall asleep at the wheel.
Egregious or not, however, Mo-Vac’s actions were not “substantially certain” to result in the death of driver Fabian Escobedo on a two-lane West Texas highway in the early morning hours of May 30, 2012, the court said, ending a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Escobedo’s parents.
The case tested the limits of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, enacted by the Legislature in 1913 to provide prompt pay of injured workers’ medical bills and lost wages without the uncertainty of proving liability under common-law theories.
The outcome is sure to ease concerns of the state’s business community, which weighed in with amicus briefs. One filed by the Texas Association of Business and others said a ruling adverse to the trucking company would risk employers opting out of workers comp.
In an unusual concurring opinion, Justice Eva Guzman, called on the Texas Legislature to allow parents of deceased workers to recover exemplary damages for intentional injuries as is currently allowed for surviving spouses and heirs. Had Escobedo been a husband or a father, she said, Mo-Vac would be accountable for its conduct.
Escobedo was 48 when his rolled his truck and trailer as he was returning to the company’s Dilley service yard after averaging 17 hours of daily driving in the week preceding the accident. He had been driving for Mo-Vac for 12 years.
The Supreme Court held that Escobedo failed to raise a fact issue on whether the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act applies.
Referring to a line of cases interpreting when a covered employee could seek a remedy outside of the act, the court in an opinion by Chief Justice Nathan Hecht said it is tempting for courts to find a way to recompense injury from an employer’s egregious behavior.
“But destabilizing the workers’ compensation system is also a harsh result affecting all Texas employers and employees who benefit from it,” said Hecht. “Based on Reed Tool and consistent with Rodriguez, we hold that for the intentional-tort exception to the exclusive remedy to apply, the employer must believe that its actions are substantially certain to result in a particular injury to a particular employee, not merely highly likely to increase overall risks to employees in the workplace.”
J. Joseph Vale, a McAllen partner at Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, represents Mo-Vac. Midland’s Stuart Starry represents the Escobedo family.
Justice Guzman in her concurring opinion said precedent compelled her to join the court’s conclusion that the workers’ compensation act provides the exclusive remedy for the Escobedo family’s “heart-wrenching loss.” She declined to join the court in adopting the “particular employee” standard, calling it “an unduly rigid gloss that is unnecessary to resolve the dispute in this case.”
The main evidence supporting Escobedo’s parents came from Urbano Garza, who managed the drivers for Mo-Vac. He said in an affidavit that the company encouraged drivers to alter their work logs to appear in compliance with state sleep and rest regulations. Garza said when he told the company’s operations manager that one of the drivers was going to get killed, the manager said “we will cross that bridge when we come to it.”
The trial court granted Mo-Vac’s no-evidence motion for summary judge. The 13th Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, saying there was a fact issue whether Mo-Vac believed its conduct was substantially certain to cause Escobedo’s death.
The Supreme Court in an 8-0 ruling rendered judgment for Mo-Vac.
“Mo-Vac may have known that there was an ascertainable statistical chance that some of its drivers would be injured over some period of time and that the number of hours its drivers worked would impact that chance,” Hecht said. “But this evidence does not indicate that Mo-Vac intended a driver be killer on the job or that Escobedo’s crash due to his grueling schedule was substantially certain.”
Guzman said that Mo-Vac’s alleged behavior “shocks the conscience by demonstrating willful disregard for public and employee safety.”
“Mo-Vac, however, will not be held to answer for its intentional conduct because of an incongruity between the beneficiaries who may recover exemplary damages for intentional and grossly negligent conduct under the wrongful-death statute and those who may recover such damages for the same conduct under the workers’ compensation statute,” she said.
Justice Debra Lehrmann did not participate in the decision.
Read the court’s opinion and Justice Guzman’s concurring opinion in Mo-Vac v. Escobedo.