PERSONAL INJURY | 2026-10-09

The Going-and-Coming Rule and Its Exceptions: When a California Employer Is Liable for an Employee’s Car Crash

California employers are generally not liable for crashes their employees cause while commuting to and from work. But the going-and-coming rule has exceptions — the required-vehicle exception and the special-errand exception chief among them — and those exceptions often decide whether an injured person can reach an employer’s insurance.

When an employee causes a car crash, the injured person often wants to reach the employer — not only the individual driver — because the employer typically carries far larger insurance. The doctrine that makes an employer responsible for an employee’s negligence is respondeat superior : an employer

Car crashes rarely involve only two people and two insurance policies. When the at-fault driver was working — or arguably working — at the time of the collision, the driver's employer may be legally responsible, and that can transform a case. Employers generally carry commercial auto and liability coverage far larger than a personal policy, which matters enormously when injuries are serious. The question of whether the employer is on the hook turns on a body of California law organized around one rule and a set of exceptions.

Respondeat Superior: The Starting Point

Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment. The doctrine does not require the employer to have done anything wrong; liability flows from the employment relationship itself, on the theory that the costs of an enterprise's activities should fall on the enterprise. California courts apply the rule broadly, and the scope-of-employment question is ordinarily one of fact. The California Supreme Court has explained that conduct falls within the scope of employment if it is either required by or incidental to the employee's duties, or reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer's business. Jury instructions on vicarious liability and scope of employment are set out in the CACI series on respondeat superior (CACI Nos. 3720 and following). The critical limiting principle is that the employee must be serving the employer's interests, not purely personal ones, when the harm occurs.

The Going-and-Coming Rule

Against that broad backdrop, the going-and-coming rule draws a line around the daily commute. The rule holds that an employee going to and coming from work is ordinarily acting outside the scope of employment, so the employer is not vicariously liable for a crash during the commute. The rationale is that the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves work until the employee returns, and that the ordinary risks of travel between home and a fixed workplace are borne by the employee, not the employer. The rule reflects the reality that the commute is a personal choice about where to live and how to get to work, not part of the job. For an injured person, the going-and-coming rule is the obstacle; the exceptions are the path around it.

The Required-Vehicle Exception

The most important exception applies when the employer requires the employee to furnish a vehicle for use on the job, or benefits from having the employee's vehicle available at work. The California Supreme Court recognized this in Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, which held an employer liable for a commuting employee's crash where the employer effectively paid for travel time and benefited from the arrangement. The principle was developed in the workers' compensation context in Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Board (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150 and applied to third-party liability in cases like Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp. (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 803. The logic is that if the employer requires the employee to bring a car so it can be used for work errands, deliveries, or client visits, the commute itself becomes part of the employment arrangement — the employer is getting the benefit of the vehicle's availability, so it fairly bears the risk of the commute. The exception does not require that the car actually be used for work on the day of the crash; it is enough that the employer required or expressly or impliedly relied on the vehicle's availability.

Moradi and the Reach of the Required-Vehicle Exception

The modern boundaries of the required-vehicle exception were drawn in Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 896. There, an insurance company required an employee to use her personal vehicle for work — visiting clients and prospects. On her way home, she planned to stop for frozen yogurt and a yoga class, and she struck a motorcyclist while turning into the yogurt shop. The Court of Appeal held the employer could be vicariously liable despite the going-and-coming rule, because the required-vehicle exception applied and the minor, foreseeable personal stop on the way home did not take the employee outside the scope of employment. Moradi stands for two propositions injured plaintiffs rely on: first, that requiring an employee to use a personal car for work can keep the entire commute within the scope of employment; and second, that incidental, foreseeable personal detours — a quick errand on the way home — do not necessarily break that scope. The employer gets the benefit of the arrangement during the whole commute, minor stops included.

Where the Exception Ends: Jorge and Newland

The required-vehicle exception has limits, and later cases mark them. In Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 382, the court declined to apply the exception where the employee was not required to use his personal vehicle for work and the employer derived no benefit from its availability — an ordinary commute in a personal car, without a work-use requirement, stayed outside the scope of employment. In Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676, the court again confined the exception, declining to hold the employer liable where the facts did not show the kind of required use and employer benefit that Hinman and Moradi demanded. Together, Jorge and Newland teach that the exception is not automatic whenever an employee happens to drive to work; it turns on whether the employer required the vehicle or genuinely benefited from its availability. For a plaintiff, that means the investigation must develop the specific facts of the work-use requirement — job descriptions, mileage reimbursement, client-visit expectations, and the practical necessity of the car — rather than assuming the exception applies.

The Special-Errand Exception

A second major exception applies when the employee, at the time of the crash, was undertaking a special errand or mission for the employer. If the employee is running a work errand — even during what would otherwise be a commute, and even outside normal hours — the trip is within the scope of employment. The classic formulation comes from cases such as Boynton v. McKales (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 777, which recognized that an employee on a special errand for the employer remains within the scope of employment for the entire trip, including the portion going to and returning from the errand. The special-errand exception commonly arises when an employee is asked to stop by a client, pick up supplies, attend a work function, or make a delivery on the way to or from work. The key is that the employer's business, not the employee's personal convenience, is the purpose of the trip. A personal deviation substantial enough to be a frolic of the employee's own can suspend the scope of employment until the employee returns to the business purpose.

Frolic, Detour, and the Limits of Scope

Even when an employee is on the clock or on an errand, a substantial personal departure can place conduct outside the scope of employment. California distinguishes between a minor detour — a slight deviation that remains incidental to the employment and does not break vicarious liability — and a frolic — a substantial departure for purely personal reasons that does. Moradi illustrates the forgiving end of the spectrum: a quick stop for yogurt on the way home was an incidental detour, not a frolic. At the other end, an employee who abandons the work purpose entirely to pursue personal business over a meaningful distance and time may take the employer off the hook. The line is fact-intensive and usually a jury question, which is one reason these cases rarely resolve cleanly on the pleadings and why a thorough factual investigation matters so much.

Why This Analysis Decides the Value of a Case

For an injured person, whether the employer is liable is often the difference between meaningful recovery and a hollow judgment. A negligent driver with a minimum California auto policy may carry only $15,000 in bodily-injury coverage per person — nowhere near enough for a serious injury. The same driver's employer may carry a commercial policy with limits of $1 million or more. Establishing that the driver was acting within the scope of employment — through the required-vehicle exception, the special-errand exception, or ordinary on-the-job driving — can unlock that coverage. That is why experienced counsel investigates the employment relationship immediately: who owned and insured the vehicle, whether the employer required its use, what the employee was doing and for whom at the moment of impact, and whether any work errand was in progress. These facts, developed early through records and testimony, frequently determine the outcome.

Direct Employer Negligence: A Separate Path

Vicarious liability is not the only route to an employer. California also recognizes direct employer negligence — negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or entrustment — when the employer's own conduct contributed to the harm, such as putting a dangerous or unqualified driver on the road. Direct negligence does not depend on the going-and-coming rule in the same way, because it targets the employer's own fault rather than vicarious responsibility for the employee's commute. We examine one such theory in our article on negligent entrustment of a vehicle in California. In many cases both theories are pleaded, giving the injured person more than one way to reach the employer.

Delivery, Rideshare, and Gig Work

The rise of delivery and gig driving has sharpened the going-and-coming analysis. A driver ferrying packages, food, or passengers is generally in the service of the enterprise while actively working — far from an ordinary commute — which can expose the hiring company to liability for crashes that occur during the work. The analysis grows more intricate when the driver is classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee, because vicarious liability traditionally attaches to employees. California's worker-classification rules, and the control a company exercises over the driver, bear on whether a true employment relationship exists for tort purposes. Even where a driver is a contractor, a company can face direct-negligence exposure or liability under theories that look past the label to the reality of control. For an injured person, the key early questions are whether the driver was engaged in the work at the moment of the crash — logged into an app, carrying a delivery, en route to a pickup — and what insurance the platform or company carries for its drivers, which can be substantial and tiered by the driver's status at the time of the collision. These facts are recorded in app data and company records that must be preserved before they are overwritten.

What Damages an Injured Person Can Recover

When an employer is properly brought into a case, the injured person can pursue the full range of California tort damages against both the driver and the employer. Economic damages include past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and lost earning capacity — categories that can be enormous in a serious-injury case involving surgery, long-term care, or permanent disability. Non-economic damages compensate for pain, suffering, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life. In a wrongful-death case, surviving family members may recover for the loss of their loved one's financial support, companionship, and guidance. Reaching the employer's larger insurance is frequently what makes these damages collectible rather than theoretical, because a judgment is only as valuable as the assets and insurance available to satisfy it. That is precisely why the scope-of-employment analysis is not a technicality but the hinge on which the real-world value of a case turns.

What to Do After a Crash With a Possible Work Connection

If you were hurt by a driver who may have been working — a company car, a logo on the door, a mention of a delivery or client visit, a vehicle used for the job — document everything at the scene and tell your attorney promptly. The employment connection can be subtle, and the evidence that proves it (employment records, reimbursement policies, dispatch logs, text messages about work tasks) is in the employer's hands and can disappear. Early investigation preserves it. Because the going-and-coming analysis is so fact-driven, a seemingly ordinary fender-bender can turn into a substantial employer-liability case once the work connection is developed, or an apparent employer case can fall away if the facts do not support an exception.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the going-and-coming rule?

It is a California rule that an employee commuting to or from work is ordinarily acting outside the scope of employment, so the employer is generally not vicariously liable for a crash the employee causes during the commute. The employment relationship is treated as suspended during the ordinary commute.

When is an employer liable for an employee's crash anyway?

When an exception applies. The two most important are the required-vehicle exception (the employer required the employee to furnish a vehicle for work or benefited from its availability) and the special-errand exception (the employee was running a work errand or mission at the time). Ordinary on-the-job driving is also within the scope of employment.

What is the required-vehicle exception?

Recognized in Hinman v. Westinghouse and expanded in Moradi v. Marsh USA, it provides that when an employer requires an employee to use a personal vehicle for work, the commute can fall within the scope of employment — and minor, foreseeable personal stops on the way home do not necessarily break that scope.

Does a quick personal stop on the way home defeat employer liability?

Not necessarily. In Moradi, a short stop for frozen yogurt on the way home was treated as an incidental detour that did not take the employee outside the scope of employment. A substantial personal departure — a frolic — can, but a minor foreseeable errand generally does not.

What is the special-errand exception?

If an employee is undertaking a special errand or mission for the employer — picking up supplies, visiting a client, attending a work function — the entire trip, including going and returning, is within the scope of employment, even outside normal hours. The employer's business, not personal convenience, must be the purpose.

Why does it matter whether the employer is liable?

Because employers usually carry far larger insurance than individual drivers. A driver's minimum personal policy may be inadequate for a serious injury, while the employer's commercial coverage may be substantial. Reaching the employer often determines whether an injured person can be fully compensated.

Can I sue the employer for its own negligence, not just vicariously?

Yes. California also allows claims for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, or entrustment, which target the employer's own conduct rather than vicarious responsibility for the commute. These claims can apply even where the going-and-coming rule would otherwise block vicarious liability.

What should I do if I think the driver who hit me was working?

Preserve evidence of the work connection (company vehicle, logos, statements about a delivery or client visit) and contact an attorney promptly. Employment records that prove scope of employment are in the employer's hands and can be lost. Call Trembach Law Firm at (213) 645-2246 for an evaluation.

Talk to a California Injury Lawyer About an Employer's Liability

If you were injured by a driver who may have been working at the time, the identity of the responsible insurance can hinge on a fact-intensive scope-of-employment analysis. California's going-and-coming rule and its required-vehicle and special-errand exceptions — built through Hinman, Moradi, Jorge, and Newland — frequently decide whether an employer answers for the crash. Trembach Law Firm, led by Anatolii Trembach (admitted in California), investigates the work connection early, identifies every responsible party and policy, and pursues full compensation for injured Californians and their families. Call (213) 645-2246 for a free consultation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301