California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2017)

3724. Going-and-Coming Rule

Download PDF
3724.Going-and-Coming Rule—Business-Errand Exception
In general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment
while traveling to and from the workplace. But if the employee, while
commuting, is on an errand for the employer, then the employee’s
conduct is within the scope of his or her employment from the time the
employee starts on the errand until he or she returns from the errand
or until he or she completely abandons the errand for personal reasons.
In determining whether an employee has completely abandoned a
business errand for personal reasons, you may consider the following:
a. The intent of the employee;
b. The nature, time, and place of the employee’s conduct;
c. The work the employee was hired to do;
d. The incidental acts the employer should reasonably have
expected the employee to do;
e. The amount of freedom allowed the employee in performing [his/
her] duties; and
f. The amount of time consumed in the personal activity;
g. [specify other factors, if any].
New September 2003; Revised June 2014
Directions for Use
This instruction sets forth the business or special-errand exception to the going-and-
coming rule. It may be given with CACI No. 3720, Scope of Employment.
Under the going-and-coming rule, commute time is not within the scope of
employment. However, if the employee is engaged in a “special errand” or a
“special mission” for the employer while commuting, it will negate the going-and-
coming rule and put the employee within the scope of employment. (Jeewarat v.
Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 427, 435–436 [98
Cal.Rptr.3d 837].)
Scope of employment ends once the employee abandons or substantially deviates
from the special errand. The second paragraph sets forth factors that the jury may
consider in determining whether there has been abandonment of a business errand.
(See Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 886, 907 [162 Cal.Rptr.3d
280] [opinion may be read to suggest that for the business-errand exception, CACI
No. 3723, Substantial Deviation, should not be given].)
679
0055
Sources and Authority
• “ ‘An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called “going and
coming rule.” Under this rule, an employee is not regarded as acting within the
scope of employment while going to or coming from the workplace . . . . This
is based on the concept that the employment relationship is suspended from the
time the employee leaves work until he or she returns, since the employee is
not ordinarily rendering services to the employer while traveling . . . .’ ”
(Jeewarat, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 435.)
• “ ‘The special-errand exception to the going-and-coming rule is stated as
follows: “If the employee is not simply on his way from his home to his normal
place of work or returning from said place to his home for his own purpose, but
is coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of
his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer, the employee
is considered to be in the scope of his employment from the time that he starts
on the errand until he has returned or until he deviates therefrom for personal
reasons.” ’ ” (Moradi, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 906, original italics.)
• “When an employee is engaged in a ‘special errand’ or a ‘special mission’ for
the employer it will negate the ‘going and coming rule.’ . . . The employer is
‘liable for torts committed by its employee while traveling to accomplish a
special errand because the errand benefits the employer . . . .’ ” (Jeewarat,
supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 436, internal citations omitted.)
• “[I]n determining whether an employee has completely abandoned pursuit of a
business errand for pursuit of a personal objective, a variety of relevant
circumstances should be considered and weighed. Such factors may include
[(1)] the intent of the employee, [(2)] the nature, time and place of the
employee’s conduct, [(3)] the work the employee was hired to do, [(4)] the
incidental acts the employer should reasonably have expected the employee to
do, [(5)] the amount of freedom allowed the employee in performing his duties,
and [(6)] the amount of time consumed in the personal activity. . . . While the
question of whether an employee has departed from his special errand is
normally one of fact for the jury, where the evidence clearly shows a complete
abandonment, the court may make the determination that the employee is
outside the scope of his employment as a matter of law.” (Moradi, supra, 219
Cal.App.4th at p. 907, original italics.)
• “Several general examples of the special-errand exception appear in the cases.
One would be where an employee goes on a business errand for his employer
leaving from his workplace and returning to his workplace. Generally, the
employee is acting within the scope of his employment while traveling to the
location of the errand and returning to his place of work. The exception also
may be applicable to the employee who is called to work to perform a special
task for the employer at an irregular time. The employee is within the scope of
his employment during the entire trip from his home to work and back to his
home. The exception is further applicable where the employer asks an employee
to perform a special errand after the employee leaves work but before going
CACI No. 3724 VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITY
680
0056
home. In this case, as in the other examples, the employee is normally within
the scope of his employment while traveling to the special errand and while
traveling home from the special errand.” (Felix v. Asai (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d
926, 931–932 [237 Cal.Rptr. 718], internal citations omitted.)
• “Plaintiffs contend an employee’s attendance at an out-of-town business
conference authorized and paid for by the employer may be a special errand for
the benefit of the employer under the special errand doctrine. [Defendant]
asserts that the special errand doctrine does not apply to commercial travel. We
conclude that a special errand may include commercial travel such as the
business trip in this case.” (Jeewarat, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 436.)
• “An employee who has gone upon a special errand does not cease to be acting
in the course of his employment upon his accomplishment of the task for which
he was sent. He is in the course of his employment during the entire trip.”
(Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495 [48 Cal.Rptr. 765].)
Secondary Sources
3 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th ed. 2005) Agency and Employment,
§§ 181–184
Finley, California Summary Judgment and Related Termination Motions § 1:1 et
seq. (The Rutter Group)
2 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 20, Motor Vehicles, § 20.42[3] (Matthew
Bender)
2 California Employment Law, Ch. 30, Employers’ Tort Liability to Third Parties
for Conduct of Employees, § 30.05 (Matthew Bender)
21 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 248, Employer’s Liability for
Employee’s Torts, §§ 248.11, 248.16 (Matthew Bender)
37 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 427, Principal and Agent,
§ 427.22 (Matthew Bender)
10 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100A, Employer and Employee:
Respondeat Superior, § 100A.28 et seq. (Matthew Bender)
1 California Civil Practice: Torts § 3:10 (Thomson Reuters)
VICARIOUS RESPONSIBILITY CACI No. 3724
681
0057