Court Affirms Going and Coming Rule Protects Hybrid Employers

Takeaway: Hybrid work does not automatically turn an employee’s home into a second worksite for all purposes. Employers should still evaluate whether an employee was actually performing job duties at the time of an accident before assuming they face liability. Clear remote-work policies can help reinforce when the workday begins and ends.

A California appellate court held that an employer was not liable for injuries caused by a physician who struck a bicyclist while driving from home to work, reaffirming that the “going and coming rule” generally shields employers from liability for ordinary commutes.

Under California’s respondeat superior doctrine, employers may be liable for torts employees commit within the scope of employment. The going and coming rule creates an important exception, providing that employees ordinarily are outside the scope of employment while commuting to and from work.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when a physician employed by Southern California Permanente Medical Group struck him while driving to a Kaiser medical office. The physician worked under a hybrid arrangement. She typically spent three days per week seeing patients in person and two days working remotely from home. On remote days, she used employer-issued equipment to conduct video visits and complete administrative work.

On the day of the accident, the physician was driving her personal vehicle to the medical office for a scheduled in-person workday. She was not on the phone, responding to messages, or performing any work tasks at the time of the collision.

The plaintiff sued both the physician and the medical group, arguing that the employer was vicariously liable because the physician’s home functioned as a second workplace. According to the plaintiff, traveling from home to the office was analogous to traveling between two job sites, an established exception to the going and coming rule.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding that the physician was engaged in a routine commute and therefore outside the scope of her employment. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed. The court explained that the dispositive question was not whether the physician sometimes worked from home, but whether she was acting within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred.

The undisputed evidence showed she was commuting to work in her own car and was not performing any job duties. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a hybrid schedule transformed every trip from home to the office into employer-directed travel.

The court emphasized that accepting the plaintiff’s theory would effectively eliminate the going and coming rule for millions of remote and hybrid workers. The fact that an employee occasionally performs work at home, the court said, does not convert the home into a permanent jobsite for respondeat superior purposes. The court also noted that the physician received no mileage reimbursement for her commute and was not subject to any special errand or work-related task when the accident occurred.

Sample Policy: In-Office, Remote and Hybrid Work Arrangements Policy

For employers, the decision provides reassurance that longstanding liability principles continue to apply even as remote work arrangements become more common. But the ruling also highlights the importance of maintaining clear boundaries around remote work. Employers should define when employees are expected to perform work, whether travel is compensable and when mileage is reimbursed. HR should also train managers not to blur those lines by assigning tasks during an employee’s commute.

Where an employee is traveling between client locations, running a special errand, or otherwise performing work-related duties, the result may be different.

Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Cal. Ct. App., No. B340770 (Apr. 9, 2026).