The theory of respondeat superior makes employers vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by employees during the course and scope of their employment. The “going and coming” rule generally exempts employers from liability for acts that occur while employees are traveling to or from work, because employees are ordinarily outside the course and scope of employment during their daily commute.
A well-known exception to the going-and-coming rule arises if the employee's use of a vehicle gives an incidental benefit to the employer. This is often called the “required-vehicle” exception and turns on whether the employer derives a benefit from the employee's vehicle use, or requires the vehicle as a condition of employment or as an expected accommodation.
For more on employer exposure when employees use vehicles for business purposes, see Employer Liability for Auto-Related Business.
As an example of statutory language that captures these ideas, a typical course-and-scope definition excludes ordinary commuting but lists exceptions and qualifications. Those exclusions are often followed by exceptions that bring certain travel back into the course and scope of employment.
Transportation exclusion and exceptions
(A) transportation to and from the place of employment unless:
- the transportation is furnished as a part of the contract of employment or is paid for by the employer;
- the means of the transportation are under the control of the employer; or
- the employee is directed in the employee's employment to proceed from one place to another place;
Travel that furthers both work and personal affairs
(B) travel by the employee in the furtherance of the affairs or business of the employer if the travel is also in furtherance of personal or private affairs of the employee unless:
- the travel to the place of occurrence of the injury would have been made even had there been no personal or private affairs of the employee to be furthered by the travel; and
- the travel would not have been made had there been no affairs or business of the employer to be furthered by the travel.
In insurance contexts, travel must typically meet both components of the policy's course-and-scope definition to be covered. Subsection (A) typically lists disjunctive exceptions (any one suffices to include the travel), while subsection (B) often sets conjunctive criteria that must both be met.
Put more simply, travel required by an employer can still be within the course and scope of employment even if it also serves the employee's personal interests, provided the work-related purpose was a driving factor in making the trip.
A California appellate case illustrates the point. In Lobo v. Tamco, a deputy sheriff was killed when his motorcycle struck a car driven by an employee leaving his workplace. The employee defendant was leaving Tamco at the end of the day and was going home, but he kept work-related items in his car and testified that he would use his car to visit customer job sites when asked. The court concluded this evidence supported application of the required-vehicle exception because the employer had come to expect the employee to make his car available for business use.
Tamco argued the visits to customer sites were rare and that driving was not an integral part of the employee's job, but the court noted there was no clear precedent requiring frequent use before the exception could apply.
Lesson learned: allowing employees to use personal vehicles for company business can increase employer liability. Make sure employees understand the expectations for vehicle use, verify good driving records, and maintain sufficient insurance. For additional context on overlap with workers' compensation and business auto coverage, see Workers' Compensation, Hiring Tradeoffs, and Business Auto Coverage.
If you have questions about coverage or risk, consider contacting your broker or ask an agent to review your policies.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can an employer be held liable for an employee's car accident?
An employer can be vicariously liable when the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment, including situations where the vehicle was required or its use provided an incidental benefit to the employer.
What is the “required-vehicle” exception?
It applies when an employer requires or reasonably comes to rely on an employee's personal vehicle for business tasks, making travel with that vehicle part of employment duties.
Does occasional use of a personal car for work always avoid employer liability?
No—courts may find liability if the employer benefits from or expects the vehicle to be available for business, even if use is infrequent.