Court Opinion

ID: 9684461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:58:03.013308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:56.041473
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
PRESLAR, Associate Justice.
I respectfully dissent. I do not disagree with the proposition of law which the majority applies to this case; that is, that an injury, to be compensable, must have been received by the employee while engaged in or about the furtherance of the affairs or business of his employer, for the controlling law is the statute itself. Nor is my dissent based on any failure to give the Texas Workmen’s Compensation law a liberal construction, for cases should be decided on specifics and not generalities. But I am convinced that a jury question is presented by the record in this case and that the court erred in taking the case away from the jury.
In determining whether the court erred in withdrawing this case from the jury and entering judgment for the appellee, this court must look to the testimony most favorable to appellant’s contention and reject all that tends to disprove it. Hamilton v. *362Liles, 404 S.W.2d 342, Tex.Civ.App., ref., n. r. e.
This is not the ordinary case of one injured outside the regular hours of his employment, away from the employer’s premises, or while going to and from work, or while on call to come to the place of work. This man, in his capacity as a tool pusher, had a work situation peculiar to the drilling of an oil well, which distinguishes it from the decided cases relied on by the majority (excepting the Monroe case, which reached a result contrary to that of the majority).
By the chain of command on a drilling rig, as stringent and rigid as the military, the tool pusher is in charge of the drilling operation of that well around the clock. Under him are three crews, each headed by a driller, and each of which works an eight-hour shift doing the manual labor. The evidence is that such was the case on this well, and that the tool pusher was under the drilling superintendent who was in charge of all rigs. This tool pusher was as much in charge, and on duty, as to one crew as the other, regardless of the hour of the day. The safety engineer for the employer testified that the tool pusher was in charge; he was the boss of that rig, and the drillers and their crews worked under him; that he was in charge 24 hours a day, free to some extent to take off a few hours, but should let the drillers know where he could be reached. As to the statement attributed to this witness by the majority, he was asked:
“Q I gather you mean that a tool pusher should keep in touch with his rig, is that correct ?
A Yes, but at the same time a tool pusher, he is free to carry own his own business * *
This witness also testified that the tool pusher could go to the filling station, Sunday school, dancing, barber shop, movies, stop off for coffee (or a drink if not in the company car), but should let somebody know where he could be reached at all times, and that being “out-of-pocket” too many times would get him in trouble with his employer. As noted by the majority, the employer furnished the tool pusher with a car, and the employer supplied a two-way radio, which was mobile to the extent that it could be used both in the car and in the trailer house where he lived (and died). By means of the two-way radio the deceased could call the drillers and crews at the rig and they could call him. The same was true as to the Midland office of the employer, FWA. The safety engineer, speaking of tool pushers and this two-way radio, testified: “Sometimes they have a separate unit that can be put in the home, they don’t ever take it to have coffee. If they are going to spend the night at home, they have a plug in deal, I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but there is a separate unit that can be put in the house and connected to the automobile and they can receive calls.” The widow and daughters of the deceased employee testified that he had such a unit, which at times he removed from the car and took into the house, and that the employer paid for the telephone in their trailer house except for their personal long-distance calls. They also testified that the two-way radio was a constant companion of the deceased; that “he kept that radio with him at all times”. It was not in his car when the fire occurred and, under the evidence, I think a jury could infer that it was in the trailer house. The widow and daughters also testified that the deceased worked at home for his employer, used the telephone a lot ordering supplies and oil and things for the rig; that he received calls at all times of the day and night and received calls “when something happened at the rig”. A daughter testified that he was “never at home, and when he was they were always calling him”; that he was always calling or being called, drillers or roughnecks or somebody with FWA. Another daughter testified that most of the time he stayed at a trailer house at the rig, and when he came home he was usually called *363back; that this happened frequently; that there were never long periods without calls to go back to the rig, order some parts or take care of company business. She was asked, “Was there any such thing as any time off when he was actually, even though he was there at the house, that he was off duty?” and she answered, “No, sir.”
On the trial of this cause all matters were stipulated except scope of employment and lump sum payment, and the ap-pellee-defendant’s motion to withdraw the case from the jury was based on insufficient evidence to present a question that the deceased received the injuries which caused his death while in the scope of his employment. I think the evidence, coupled with matters of common knowledge, present such a question. As indicated by the majority, there is no direct evidence that the deceased was at the time of his death, or immediately prior thereto, performing any work in the furtherance of the affairs or business of FWA Drilling Co. It is readily apparent that the deceased was in a different category from the “on call” case of an embalmer, and others similarly situated, who are on call to come to the place of employment, there to perform services for the employer. This man did not have to be any particular place to perform his services; his place of performing was beside the two-way radio and the telephone. His lips are sealed as to what he was doing, but he was beside the telephone and it can be inferred that he was beside the radio. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the drilling of an oil well there is an ever-changing work situation. As the drill bit penetrates the various formations, different tactics, different supplies, in different quantities, are called for. Those doing the manual tasks called on the tool pusher in this case for supplies and instructions to meet this ever-changing situation. The crews were each at the well only eight hours of the twenty-four, but one man — the tool pusher — was employed to keep abreast of all that went on twenty-four hours of the day to coordinate the work, solve the problems and see that machinery, services and supplies were available as needed. The employer made the tool pusher always available, everywhere, whenever his rig was running, and received the benefits twenty-four hours per day. The deceased was at home, but a man does not step out of the scope of his employment when he pauses to take a drink of water or do other things contemplated to be necessary for a human being when he is employed. As said in Southern Surety Co. v. Shook, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 425: “When a man is employed to work at any job, the fact that he is a human, with ordinary human habits and requirements, is necessarily taken into consideration.” (Cited in Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Bush, 5 Cir., 201 F.2d 843, a .case in point here.) Of necessity, one on twenty-four hour duty might retire to his home. That would be expected by the employer and was known to the employer who, in fact, made provision to continue receiving his services during periods of rest by furnishing the portable two-way radio and the telephone.
Viewed in the light which it must be on appeal, the evidence presents a question for jury determination, and I would reverse and remand the case for submission to the jury.