![Nabors Drilling](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Nabors Drilling](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Nabors Drilling
288 S.W.3D 401, 52 TEX. SUP. CT. J. 885, 2009.TX.0004954
-
- € 0,99
-
- € 0,99
Publisher Description
Employers in Texas generally do not owe a duty to third parties for the tortious activities of off-duty employees occurring off the work site. Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 594 (Tex. 2006). We have recognized a limited exception to this rule when an employer exercises control over the injury-causing conduct of its employee, imposing a duty, for example, when an employer sent an obviously intoxicated employee to drive home, Otis Engg Corp. v. Clark, 668 S.W.2d 307, 308, 311 (Tex. 1983), and when an employer required its employee to consume alcohol while on the job, D. Houston, Inc. v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450, 457 (Tex. 2002). In this case, we consider whether such a limited duty should extend to an employer whose work conditions could induce extreme fatigue in its employees. For the reasons expressed below, we hold that the employer had no duty to prevent injury due to the fatigue of its off-duty employee or to train employees about the dangers of fatigue.