Employer Liability for Employees Driving to/from Work

In the past, we've discussed here on Tort Talk some issues that apply when employees drive to work.Last week, the California Court of Appeal issued a groundbreaking decision that clarifies vicarious liability for employers when their employees injure others on their way to/from work.The case is Newland v. County of Los Angeles, and it ruled on the "vehicle use exception" applicable to what's known as the "going and coming" rule.  Some background is appropriate.As a rule, employers are vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employees that are in the course and scope of their employment.  The rationale is not to punish the employer--instead, it is because "the employer's enterprise creates inevitable risks as a result of doing business." (Haliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Dep't of Transportation 2013 (220 Cal.App.4th 87, 94)Employers are usually exempt, however, from tort liability for torts caused by employees who are driving to or from work.  This is known as the "going and coming rule."But, as confusing as it might sound, there are exceptions to the "going and coming rule"--exceptions that reinstate the employer's liability.  One such exception is the required vehicle exception, which holds that if an employer requires its employee to use his/her own car as part of the employment, then the going and coming rule does not apply--and liability can be imposed on the employer for that employee's torts.How does the Court determine whether the employee's tort falls under the "required vehicle exception?"  That was the subject of Newland v. County of Los Angeles.Donald Prigo is an attorney who, in 2013, worked for the County of Los Angeles Public Defender's Office. He often used his personal vehicle to commute to/from work, as well as to interview his clients and investigate crime scenes.  He was not required to use his personal vehicle on the job, but doing so was more practical.In 2013, after leaving work to go to the post office on his way home, he collided with another car.  That car, in turn, hit a pedestrian named Jake Newhall, the plaintiff in this case.  Newhall sued the County of Los Angeles, arguing that it should be vicariously liable for its employee Donald Prigo's collision.In a lengthy analysis, the Court ruled that for the required vehicle use exception to apply, the employer must 1) require the employee to drive his/her car to/from the workplace at the time of the accident, and 2) the employee's use of his/her personal car must provide a benefit to the employer at the time of the accident.Here, although the jury decided that the required vehicle exception applied (and the County was liable), the Court of Appeal disagreed.  Prigo was never required to use his own vehicle.  Even though he often did, it was never a requirement as part of his decades of working for the County.  Finally, Prigo was on his way home--with a detour to the post office--when he caused the accident.  He was on his way to mail his rent check, which provided no benefit at the time of the accident to the County of Los Angeles.As you can tell, employer liability and the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule can create complicated fact patterns.  If you or someone you know has questions about this difficult area of law, contact a personal injury attorney to discuss the variable in your case.The Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.