When employees cause accidents while traveling to or from work, questions may arise about whether their employers can be held legally responsible. Although employers may be liable for certain actions performed within the scope of employment, ordinary commuting generally falls outside that responsibility.
California courts apply the going and coming rule to determine when an employee’s travel is considered separate from employment duties. The rule includes several exceptions, requiring courts to examine the purpose of the trip, the employee’s responsibilities, and the relationship between the travel and the employer’s business.
What the Going and Coming Rule Means
The going and coming rule generally limits an employer’s liability for accidents caused by employees during their regular commutes. Under California’s respondeat superior doctrine, employers may be responsible for negligent acts committed within the scope of employment, but ordinary travel between home and work is typically excluded.
This distinction reflects the difference between activities performed for an employer and personal travel undertaken to reach the workplace. Courts examine whether the employee was engaged in ordinary commuting or activities sufficiently connected to employment responsibilities.
How Courts Determine Whether Travel Is Work-Related
Courts consider the purpose of the employee’s trip and whether the travel served the employer’s business interests. Relevant circumstances may include job responsibilities, travel requirements, and whether the employer directed the employee to perform particular tasks.
An employee traveling directly between home and a regular workplace generally falls within the rule. However, travel undertaken to complete an employer-directed assignment may receive different treatment depending on the circumstances.
When the Special Errand Exception Applies
The special errand exception may apply when an employee undertakes a particular trip at the employer’s request or for a specific business purpose. Courts examine whether the travel was sufficiently connected to an assigned task rather than an ordinary commute.
For example, an employee directed to make an unusual work-related delivery outside regular duties may fall within this exception. Courts consider the nature of the assignment, its timing, and whether the employee was carrying out the employer’s business when the accident occurred.
How the Required Vehicle Exception Works
California courts recognize that an employee’s commute may fall within the scope of employment when the employer requires the employee to use a personal vehicle for work-related purposes. This exception can apply when having the vehicle available provides a business benefit to the employer.
Courts examine whether vehicle use was an express or implied condition of employment and whether the employer received a meaningful benefit from the arrangement. Merely driving a personal vehicle to work does not automatically establish the exception.
Why Employer Benefit and Employee Duties Matter
Courts evaluate whether the employee’s travel created a benefit for the employer beyond the employee’s ordinary arrival at work. The nature of the job, expected travel, and employer requirements can help establish whether the trip was sufficiently connected to employment.
However, a general benefit from an employee arriving at work is not enough to establish employer liability. Courts distinguish ordinary commuting from circumstances in which the employer’s business requirements make travel part of the employee’s work responsibilities.
How Courts Resolve Going and Coming Rule Disputes
When a lawsuit raises the going and coming rule, courts examine evidence concerning the employee’s duties, travel arrangements, and activities at the time of the accident. Employment policies, work assignments, testimony, and communications may help establish the purpose of the trip.
If the travel qualifies as an ordinary commute without an applicable exception, the employer generally will not be vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. If an exception applies, the court may determine that the employee acted within the scope of employment, allowing the employer’s potential liability to be evaluated.
Clients Throughout California
Fields Marked With An ”*” Are Required