California court says employers aren’t liable when hybrid workers crash during their commute
Image generated by Gemini
Hybrid work brings benefits but also raises legal questions: are employers responsible when a hybrid employee causes a crash commuting to the office?
A California appeals court firmly answered no, reinforcing the ‘going-and-coming’ rule. This provides businesses with clarity while emphasizing the challenges accident victims face in holding employers liable.
What the ruling actually says
The case behind the decision
A hybrid employee of Southern California Permanente Medical Group crashed while driving to the office, leading to a lawsuit. The court sided with the employer, applying a longstanding workplace liability doctrine. The main development is its use in a hybrid work context, where the lines between personal and professional time are less clear.
How the court reached its decision
In Kai-Lin Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, the plaintiff argued that driving to the office should count as work time since the job could be done anywhere. The judge ruled in favor of the employer’s motion for summary judgment, a decision later affirmed by the appellate court.
So, when does the workday actually start?
This is where it gets interesting. The plaintiff tried to argue that having a company-issued cell phone and access to corporate communication tools meant Doremus was perpetually working. The court rejected that idea outright.
For employer liability to apply, the employee must be performing a task that provides a direct, immediate benefit to the company. Commuting itself does not meet this threshold under the ‘going-and-coming’ rule.
What this means for business owners
A precedent with national reach
Yes, this is a California ruling. But courts in other states regularly look to decisions like this one when local precedent doesn’t exist. For small and medium-sized enterprises, understanding these distinctions is a core part of managing risk, similar to evaluating the complexities of expanding a business overseas.
The bottom line? This ruling reassures business owners that implementing hybrid models no longer carries the risk that employee commutes will automatically become liability events.
Insurance and financial impact
Fatalities resulting from roadway incidents represent the most frequent cause of occupational mortality. They’re also the most expensive category of workers’ compensation claims, averaging over $100,000 per incident. That’s a huge number, especially for smaller companies.
By reinforcing the distinction between personal commuting and work-related travel, this ruling can help businesses manage risk more effectively. It could also stabilize commercial auto and liability insurance premiums, which directly affect a company’s ability to secure funding for growth.
Exceptions you need to know
This protection isn’t absolute. Employers may still be liable in specific cases where personal commutes intersect with professional duties. Watch for these key scenarios:
- The “special errand” exception: If an employee is running a work-related errand or heading to an off-site location for a business purpose, that trip falls within the scope of employment, even if it starts from home.
- Required vehicle use: When an employer requires an employee to use their personal car for tasks such as client visits or deliveries, the commute may be considered part of the job.
- The “special risk” exception: If the commute exposes the employee to a unique, job-related risk beyond what the general public faces, liability may apply. Courts have recently narrowed this exception, though.
- Dual-purpose trips: When someone combines their commute with a business task (say, stopping to pick up office supplies on the way in), courts may find the employer liable for accidents during that portion of the trip.
What this means for accident victims
A tough road for plaintiffs
If you’re hit by someone commuting to a hybrid job, you’ll now need to prove the driver was actively serving the employer at the time to sue the employer—a difficult bar to meet.
The evidence problem
Connecting a crash to job duties demands clear evidence: cell phone records, GPS data, work emails sent while driving, or testimony confirming work was performed. Since human error causes about 94% of car crashes, identifying the driver’s focus at the moment of impact is vital.
Plus, proving fault in a car accident on the way to work means meeting strict evidentiary standards to overcome the default “going-and-coming” rule. Without strong documentation, these cases rarely gain traction.
Commuting vs. work-related travel
To make these distinctions more concrete, here’s a quick breakdown of common scenarios and how liability typically shakes out:
| Scenario | Employer liability | Key factor |
| Employee drives personal car from home to office for a scheduled in-office day | Generally not liable | Standard commute; outside scope of employment |
| Employee drives from office to a client meeting during work hours | Likely liable | Actively performing job duties on a “special errand” |
| Employee stops at a supply store on the way in for office materials | Potentially liable | Trip includes a task providing direct benefit to employer |
| Salaried employee takes a client call while driving to the office | Gray area; potentially liable | Actively engaged in work, blurring the commute vs. employment line |
A clearer picture for the hybrid era
This decision clarifies that a commute is a commute, even for hybrid workers. Businesses should ensure their written policies spell out work hours and expectations for vehicle use.
Define work hours. Spell out travel reimbursement rules. Make it crystal clear when employees are (and aren’t) expected to use personal vehicles for company business. As hybrid work continues to evolve, the line between personal time and professional duty will keep shifting. Staying ahead of those changes isn’t just smart management; it’s essential for long-term financial stability.