by Eva Carrasco –
Like with most things in the world of workers’ compensation, the rules and regulations are clearly set forth in the California Labor Code. However, sometimes the rules are not codified, but are formed over time through case law. Such is the case with the common “going and coming” rule.
The “going and coming” rule as we know it in California mandates that an employer is not responsible for injuries that occur to an employee on their way going to or coming from work during their regular commute. And as with any rule in the world of the law, there are numerous exceptions that apply as follows:
- Commuting in a Company Car – often covered, depending on the state
- Required Vehicle Exception (also known as traveling to multiple job sites) – Employee required to use own vehicle to travel between separate work sites during the work day – Please see Hinojosa v. WCAB (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 150 & Betts v. YMCA, 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. PD LEXIS 248
- Personal Comfort Exception – Employee injured while engaged in a personal errand and provided employer with a benefit (brought back cigarettes or lunch for employer) – Please see Bloxham v. Lithia Ford, 2015 Cal. Wrk. Comp. PD LEXIS 271
- Parking Lot Injuries – The proximity and control held by an employer over the lot will usually control
But what does this mean in our mid-pandemic world where more than half of the American working population is now working remotely from home? Will the going and coming rule be no more? Or will it (like with any case law driven rule) evolve to redefine an employee’s daily “commute?” Or will there be additional exceptions perhaps not involving a vehicle at all, but in redefining the telecommute?
We expect there to be a massive reduction in claims as commuting to and from work in a vehicle is slowly becoming a thing of the past. But then what happens when an employee is now injured in the home during work hours? Certainly we can expect a modification of the standard of proof upon an employee. But what else?
Before the pandemic occurred, telecommuting had been slower to take hold than many previously predicted. But now the pandemic has now catapulted us into it, forcing several industries to adjust to learning how to use remote technology. For example, in the legal field, conducting depositions via televideo platforms like Zoom has become the new norm and expediting document sharing through electronic means has expanded on a much larger scale.
As a result, we may see a more permanent shift towards telecommuting even post-pandemic. On the plus side of things, employees seem to enjoy and prefer working from home, it’s better for the environment in reducing emissions and office costs and helps balance work and family roles in certain instances.
In conclusion, it’s fair to assume that the going and coming disputes may decline in the age of the pandemic as commutes are either eliminated or redefined in the age of telecommuting.
(Editor’s note: If you’re interested in reading more about workers’ compensation case law involving telecommuters, check out partner Michael Burns’ June 2019 pre-pandemic blog entry that examined this topic.)
Viewing this website does not form an attorney/client relationship between you and Bradford & Barthel, LLP or any of its attorneys. This website is for informational purposes only and does not contain legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. This document is not a substitute for legal advice and may not address every factual scenario. If you have a legal question, we encourage you to contact your favorite Bradford & Barthel, LLP attorney to discuss the legal issues applicable to your unique case. No website is entirely secure, so please be cautious with information provided through the contact form or email. Do not assume confidentiality exists in anything you send through this website or email, until an attorney/client relationship is formed.