{"id":1987,"date":"2021-10-25T03:54:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-25T03:54:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?page_id=1987"},"modified":"2022-05-09T17:45:41","modified_gmt":"2022-05-09T17:45:41","slug":"caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/","title":{"rendered":"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-fs1adf-881d38401e1d7341a50c28ab67f361e6\">\n#top .av-special-heading.av-fs1adf-881d38401e1d7341a50c28ab67f361e6{\npadding-bottom:10px;\n}\nbody .av-special-heading.av-fs1adf-881d38401e1d7341a50c28ab67f361e6 .av-special-heading-tag .heading-char{\nfont-size:25px;\n}\n.av-special-heading.av-fs1adf-881d38401e1d7341a50c28ab67f361e6 .av-subheading{\nfont-size:15px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='av-special-heading av-fs1adf-881d38401e1d7341a50c28ab67f361e6 av-special-heading-h1 blockquote modern-quote  avia-builder-el-0  el_before_av_hr  avia-builder-el-first '><h1 class='av-special-heading-tag '  itemprop=\"headline\"  >CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception<\/h1><div class='av-subheading av-subheading_below'><p>California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/p>\n<\/div><div class=\"special-heading-border\"><div class=\"special-heading-inner-border\"><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-1  el_after_av_heading  el_before_avia_sc_search '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7\">\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchform_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nborder-color:#edae44;\nbackground-color:#edae44;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #s.av-input-field{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 #searchsubmit{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n#top .avia_search_element.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7 .av_searchsubmit_wrapper{\nborder-radius:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n.ajax_search_response.av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7{\npadding:0px 0px 0px 0px;\nmargin:0px 0px 0px 0px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='avia_search_element av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7  avia-builder-el-2  el_after_av_hr  el_before_av_textblock '><search><form action='https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/' id='searchform_element' method='get' class='' data-element_id='av-avia_sc_search-f7f83518637509acfac1c9900b84c1e7' ><div class='av_searchform_wrapper'><input type='search' value='' id='s' name='s' placeholder='Search CACI' aria-label='Search CACI' class='av-input-field ' required \/><div class='av_searchsubmit_wrapper '><input type='submit' value='Find' id='searchsubmit' class='button ' title='View results on search page' aria-label='View results on search page' \/><\/div><input type='hidden' name='numberposts' value='8' \/><input type='hidden' name='post_type' value='page' \/><input type='hidden' name='results_hide_fields' value='post_titles,meta,image' \/><\/div><\/form><\/search><\/div>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-av_textblock-e878f05c31dff72941bf1e49a00d9ff5 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/\">CACI Jury Instructions Index<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/caci-fillable-forms.crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">App: CACI Jury Instructions Fillable Forms Word Format<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-av_hr-91d7ccd583a503147498e120fee2ff9b hr-default  avia-builder-el-4  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-9oi4hf-62e340b094a4d4d4d9b31f9bcf7a65b2\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-9oi4hf-62e340b094a4d4d4d9b31f9bcf7a65b2 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:20px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-9oi4hf-62e340b094a4d4d4d9b31f9bcf7a65b2 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><h2 class=\"SS_Banner\">3725\u00a0Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception<\/h2>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">In general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while traveling to and from the workplace. But if an employer requires an employee to drive to and from the workplace so that the vehicle is available for the employer\u2019s business, then the drive to and from work is within the scope of employment. The employer\u2019s requirement may be either express or implied.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\">The drive to and from work may also be within the scope of employment if the use of the employee\u2019s vehicle provides some direct or incidental benefit to the employer. There may be a benefit to the employer if (1) the employee has agreed to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer, and (2) the employer has reasonably come to rely on the vehicle\u2019s use and expects the employee to make it available regularly. The employee\u2019s agreement may be either express or implied. <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\"><\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_1\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">New September 2003; Revised June 2014, May 2017, May 2019, May 2020 <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">Crowdsource Lawyers<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\">https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci<\/a><span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\"><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Directions for Use<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_2\">\n<p>This instruction sets forth the vehicle use exception to the going-and-coming rule, sometimes called the required-vehicle exception. (See (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jorge v. Culinary Institute of America<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 382, 398, fn. 6 [207 Cal.Rptr.3d 586]; see also\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson v. Helmerich &amp; Payne International Drilling Co.<\/span>\u00a0(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 608, 624\u2013630 [209 Cal.Rptr.3d 222\u00a0[vehicle-use exception encompasses two categories; required-vehicle and incidental-use, both of which are expressed within\u00a0CACI No. 3725].) It may be given with\u00a0CACI No. 3720,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Scope of Employment<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Under the going-and-coming rule, commute time is not within the scope of employment. However, commute time is within the scope of employment if the use of a personally owned vehicle is either an express or implied condition of employment, or if the employee has agreed, expressly or implicitly, to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer and the employer has reasonably come to rely on its use and to expect the employee to make the vehicle available on a regular basis while still not requiring it as a condition of employment. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lobo v. Tamco<\/span>\u00a0(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 297, 301 [105 Cal.Rptr.3d 718].) Whether there is such a requirement or agreement can be a question of fact for the jury. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.<\/span>\u00a0(1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 723 [159 Cal. Rptr. 835, 602 P.2d 755].)<\/p>\n<p>Under this exception, the commute itself is considered the employer\u2019s business. However, scope of employment may end if the employee substantially deviates from the commute route for personal reasons. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 886, 899, 907\u2013908 [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 280].) If substantial deviation is alleged, give\u00a0CACI No. 3723,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Substantial Deviation<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>One court has stated that the employee must have been using the vehicle to do the employer\u2019s business or provide a benefit for the employer\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">at the time of the accident<\/span>. (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Newland v. County of L.A.<\/span>\u00a0(2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676, 693 [234 Cal.App.3d 374], emphasis added.) However, many cases have applied the vehicle use exception without imposing this time-of-the-accident requirement. (See, e.g.,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moradi, supra,<\/span>\u00a0219 Cal.App.4th at p. 892\u00a0(employee was just going home at the time of the accident);\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lobo, supra,<\/span>\u00a0182 Cal.App.4th at p. 302\u00a0(same);\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp.<\/span>\u00a0(1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 803, 806\u2013807 [99 Cal.Rptr. 666]\u00a0(same); see also\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Smith v. Workers\u2019 Comp. Appeals Bd.<\/span>\u00a0(1968) 69 Cal.2d 814, 815 [73 Cal.Rptr. 253, 447 P.2d 365]\u00a0(workers\u2019 compensation case: accident happened on the way to work).)\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Newland<\/span>\u00a0could be read as requiring the employee to need the vehicle for the employer\u2019s business on the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">day<\/span>\u00a0of the accident, even if the employee was not engaged in the employer\u2019s business at the\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">time<\/span>\u00a0of the accident. (See\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Newland, supra,<\/span>\u00a024 Cal.App.5th at p. 696\u00a0[\u201cno evidence that [employee] required a vehicle for work on the day of the accident, and no evidence that the [employer] received any direct or incidental benefit from [employee] driving to and from work that day\u201d].) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<h2 class=\"SS_HideShowSection SS_Expandable\">Sources and Authority<\/h2>\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\">\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018An offshoot of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the so-called \u201cgoing and coming rule.\u201d Under this rule, an employee is not regarded as acting within the scope of employment while going to or coming from the workplace.\u2009\u2026 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.\u2009\u2026\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jeewarat v. Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 427, 435 [98 Cal.Rptr.3d 837].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe \u2018required-vehicle\u2019 exception to the going and coming rule and its variants have been given many labels. In\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Halliburton, supra<\/span>, 220 Cal.App.4th 87, we used the phrase \u2018incidental benefit exception\u2019 as the equivalent of the required-vehicle exception. In\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Felix v. Asai<\/span>\u00a0(1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 926 [237 Cal. Rptr. 718]\u00a0(<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Felix<\/span>), we used the phrase \u2018vehicle-use exception.\u2019 The phrase \u2018required-use doctrine\u2019 also has been used. The \u2018vehicle-use\u2019 variant appears in the title to California\u00a0Civil Jury Instruction (CACI) No. 3725, \u2018Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception.\u2019 The various labels and the wide range of circumstances they cover have the potential to create uncertainty about the factual elements of the exception\u2014a topic of particular importance when reviewing a motion for summary judgment for triable issues of\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">material<\/span>\u00a0fact. [\u00b6] To structure our analysis of this exception, and assist the clear statement of the factual elements of its variants, we adopt the phrase \u2018vehicle-use exception\u2019 from\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Felix<\/span>\u00a0and\u00a0CACI No. 3725\u00a0to describe the exception in its broadest form. Next, under the umbrella of the vehicle-use exception, we recognize two identifiable categories with different factual elements. We label those two categories as the \u2018required-vehicle exception\u2019 and \u2018incidental benefit exception\u2019 because those labels emphasize the factual difference between the two categories.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson, supra<\/span>, 4 Cal.App.5th at pp. 624\u2013625, original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cOur division of the vehicle-use exception for purposes of this summary judgment motion should not be read as implying that this division is required, or even helpful, when presenting the scope of employment issue to a jury. The broad formulation of the vehicle-use exception in\u00a0CACI No. 3725\u00a0correctly informs the jury that the issue of ultimate fact\u2014namely, the scope of employment\u2014may be proven in different ways.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson, supra<\/span>, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 625, fn. 4.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe portion of\u00a0CACI No. 3725\u00a0addressing an employer requirement states: \u2018[I]f an employer requires an employee to drive to and from the workplace so that the vehicle is available for the employer\u2019s business, then the drive to and from work is within the scope of employment. The employer\u2019s requirement may be either express or implied.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson, supra<\/span>, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 625.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cOur formulation of the incidental benefit exception is based on the part of\u00a0CACI No. 3725\u00a0that states: \u2018The drive to and from work may \u2026 be within the scope of employment if the use of the employee\u2019s vehicle provides some direct or incidental benefit to the employer. There may be a benefit to the employer if (1) the employee has agreed to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer, and (2) the employer has reasonably come to rely on the vehicle\u2019s use and expects the employee to make it available regularly.\u2019 The \u2018agreement may be either express or implied.\u2019 The existence of an express or implied agreement can be a question of fact for the jury.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson, supra<\/span>, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 629.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he exception \u2018covers situations where there is an express or implied employer requirement. \u201cIf an employer\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">requires<\/span>\u00a0an employee to furnish a vehicle as an express or implied condition of employment, the employee will be in the scope of his employment while commuting to and from the place of his employment.\u201d\u2009\u2019 Whether there is an express or implied requirement \u2018\u2009\u201ccan be a question of fact for the jury,\u201d\u2009\u2019 but \u2018the question of fact sometimes can be decided by a court as a matter of law.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Savaikie v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals<\/span>\u00a0(2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 223, 230 [265 Cal.Rptr.3d 92], original italics.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018[W]hen a business enterprise requires an employee to drive to and from its office in order to have his vehicle available for company business during the day, accidents on the way to or from the office are statistically certain to occur eventually, and, the business enterprise having required the driving to and from work, the risk of such accidents are risks incident to the business enterprise.\u2019 [\u00b6] These holdings are the bases for the CACI instruction, the first paragraph of which tells the jury that the drive to and from work is within the scope of employment if the \u201cemployer requires [the] employee to drive to and from the workplace so that the vehicle is available for the employer\u2019s business,\u201d and the second paragraph, that the drive may be if \u2018the use of the employee\u2019s vehicle provides some direct or incidental benefit to the employer\u2019 and \u2018there may be a benefit to the employer if, one, the employee has [agreed] to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer, and two, the employer has reasonably come to rely on the vehicle\u2019s use and expect the employee to make it available regularly.\u2019 (CACI No. 3725.)\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Jorge, supra,<\/span>\u00a03 Cal.App.5th at pp. 401\u2013402, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018A well-known exception to the going-and-coming rule arises\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">where the use of the car gives some incidental benefit to the employer<\/span>. Thus, the key inquiry is whether there is an incidental benefit derived by the employer. [Citation.]\u2019 \u2026 The exception can apply if the use of a personally owned vehicle is either an express or implied condition of employment, or if the employee has agreed, expressly or implicitly, to make the vehicle available as an accommodation to the employer and the employer has \u2018reasonably come to rely upon its use and [to] expect the employee to make the vehicle available on a regular basis while still not requiring it as a condition of employment.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lobo, supra<\/span>, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 297, original italics, internal citations omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c\u2009\u2018To be sure, ordinary commuting is beyond the scope of employment\u2009\u2026\u2009. Driving a required vehicle, however, is a horse of another color because it satisfies the control and benefit elements of respondeat superior. An employee who is required to use his or her own vehicle provides an \u201cessential instrumentality\u201d for the performance of the employer\u2019s work.\u2009\u2026 When a vehicle must be provided by an employee, the employer benefits by not having to have available an office car and yet possessing a means by which off-site visits can be performed by its employees.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moradi, supra<\/span>, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 899.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhen an employer requires an employee to use a personal vehicle, it exercises meaningful control over the method of the commute by compelling the employee to foreswear the use of carpooling, walking, public transportation, or just being dropped off at work.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moradi, supra<\/span>, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 899.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cThe cases invoking the required-vehicle exception all involve employees whose jobs entail the regular use of a vehicle to accomplish the job in contrast to employees who use a vehicle to commute to a definite place of business.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Tryer v. Ojai Valley School Dist.<\/span>\u00a0(1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1476, 1481 [12 Cal.Rptr.2d 114].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[N]ot all benefits to the employer are of the type that satisfy the incidental benefits exception. The requisite benefit must be one that is \u2018not common to commute trips by ordinary members of the work force.\u2019 Thus, employers benefit when employees arrive at work on time, but this benefit is insufficient to satisfy the incidental benefits exception. An example of a sufficient benefit is where an employer enlarges the available labor market by providing travel expenses and paying for travel time.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Pierson, supra<\/span>, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 630.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhere the incidental benefit exception applies, the employee\u2019s commute directly between work and home is considered to be within the scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes. Minor deviations from a direct commute are also included, but there is no respondeat superior liability if the employee substantially departs from the employer\u2019s business or is engaged in a purely personal activity at the time of the tortious injury.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Department of Transportation<\/span>\u00a0(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 87, 97 [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 752].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cHere, the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule, not the special errand exception, governs our analysis. Accordingly, we have not applied the six factors used in special errand cases to determine whether [employee] was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. [\u00b6] Rather, we have applied the relevant principles under the required vehicle exception. Those principles differ from the six factors used to determine whether the special errand exception applies. In the present case, [employer] required [employee] to use her personal vehicle to travel to and from the office and other destinations. She also had to use her personal vehicle before, during, and after regular work hours to develop new business. We have properly examined whether [employee]\u2019s use of her personal vehicle conferred an incidental benefit on [employer]\u2014it did; whether her planned stops at the frozen yogurt shop and the yoga studio were an unforeseeable, substantial departure from her commute\u2014they were not; whether they were a foreseeable, minor deviation from her regular commute\u2014they were; whether they were not so unusual or startling that it would be unfair to include the resulting loss among the other costs of the employer\u2019s business\u2014they were not; and whether they were necessary for [employee]\u2019s comfort, convenience, health, and welfare\u2014they were.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moradi, supra<\/span>, 219 Cal.App.4th at pp. 907\u2013908.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cOne exception to the going and coming rule has been recognized when the commute involves \u2018\u2009\u201can incidental benefit to the employer, not common to commute trips by ordinary members of the work force.\u201d [Citation.]\u2019 When the employer incidentally benefits from the employee\u2019s commute, that commute may become part of the employee\u2019s workday for the purposes of respondeat superior liability. [\u00b6] The incidental benefit exception has been applied when the employer furnishes, or requires the employee to furnish, a vehicle for transportation on the job, and the negligence occurs while the employee is traveling to or from work in that vehicle.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., supra<\/span>, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 96, internal citation omitted.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he employer benefits when a vehicle is available to the employee during off-duty hours in case it is needed for emergency business trips.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc.<\/span>\u00a0(2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 568, 580 [241 Cal.Rptr.3d 678].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cPublic policy would be ill-served by a rule establishing 24-hour employer liability for on-call employees, regardless of the nature of the employee\u2019s activities at the time of an accident.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Le Elder v. Rice<\/span>\u00a0(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1610 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 749].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201c[T]he trier of fact remains free to determine in a particular case that the employee\u2019s use of his or her vehicle was too infrequent to confer a sufficient benefit to the employer so as to make it reasonable to require the employer to bear the cost of the employee\u2019s negligence in operating the vehicle. This is particularly true in the absence of an express requirement that the employee make his or her vehicle available for the employer\u2019s benefit or evidence that the employer actually relied on the availability of the employee\u2019s car to further the employer\u2019s purposes.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Lobo v. Tamco<\/span>\u00a0(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 438, 447 [178 Cal.Rptr.3d 515].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cWhether the transit is part of the employment relationship tends to be a more subtle issue than whether the transit was between home and work.\u2009\u2026 \u2018These are the extraordinary transits that vary from the norm because the employer requires a special, different transit, means of transit, or use of a car, for some particular reason of his own. When the employer gains that kind of a particular advantage, the job does more than call for routine transport to it; it plays a different role, bestowing a special benefit upon the employer by reason of the extraordinary circumstances. The employer\u2019s special request, his imposition of an unusual condition, removes the transit from the employee\u2019s choice or convenience and places it within the ambit of the employer\u2019s choice or convenience, restoring the employer-employee relationship.\u2019\u2009\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Zhu v. Workers\u2019 Comp. Appeals Bd.<\/span>\u00a0(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1038\u20131039 [219 Cal.Rptr.3d 630].)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span class=\"SS_ListLabel\">\u2022<\/span><span class=\"SS_ListItemContent\">\u201cLiability may be imposed on an employer for an employee\u2019s tortious conduct while driving to or from work, if at the time of the accident, the employee\u2019s use of a personal vehicle was required by the employer or otherwise provided a benefit to the employer.\u201d (<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Newland, supra,<\/span>\u00a024 Cal.App.5th at p. 679.) <br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><br class=\"avia-permanent-lb\" \/><\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"SS_Heading\"><span class=\"SS_bf\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_bf\"><span class=\"SS_ib\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_ib\">Secondary Sources<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n<div>4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Agency and Employment, \u00a7\u2009195<\/div>\n<div>Haning et al., California Practice Guide: Personal Injury, Ch. 2(II)-A,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Vicarious Liability<\/span>, \u00b6\u20092:803 (The Rutter Group)<\/div>\n<div>2 Levy et al.,\u00a0California Torts, Ch. 20,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Motor Vehicles<\/span>, \u00a7\u200920.42[3][d]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>2\u00a0California Employment Law, Ch. 30,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Employers\u2019 Tort Liability to Third Parties for Conduct of Employees<\/span>, \u00a7\u200930.05[4][a]\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>21\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 248,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Employer\u2019s Liability for Employee\u2019s Torts<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009248.16\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>37\u00a0California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 427,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Principal and Agent<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009427.22\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>10\u00a0California Points and Authorities, Ch. 100A,\u00a0<span class=\"SS_it\" data-housestyle=\"EMPHASIS_it\">Employer and Employee: Respondeat Superior<\/span>, \u00a7\u2009100A.26 et seq.\u00a0(Matthew Bender)<\/div>\n<div>California Civil Practice: Torts \u00a7\u20093:10 (Thomson Reuters)<\/div>\n<div class=\"SS_Note\">\n<div id=\"TRNotes_n_3\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/section>\n<div  class='hr av-834d77-ad47f93e2ccb8af299330de508b53867 hr-default  avia-builder-el-6  el_after_av_textblock  el_before_av_textblock '><span class='hr-inner '><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-666ss3-19387640d9af8d07e64fb03a27ea73c2\">\n#top .av_textblock_section.av-666ss3-19387640d9af8d07e64fb03a27ea73c2 .avia_textblock{\nfont-size:22px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<section  class='av_textblock_section av-666ss3-19387640d9af8d07e64fb03a27ea73c2 '   itemscope=\"itemscope\" itemtype=\"https:\/\/schema.org\/CreativeWork\" ><div class='avia_textblock'  itemprop=\"text\" ><p><a href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/\">CrowdSourceLawyers.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1987","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-05-09T17:45:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\\\/\",\"name\":\"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-10-25T03:54:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-05-09T17:45:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/home\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI\",\"description\":\"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/CrowdSource-Logo.png\",\"width\":453,\"height\":208,\"caption\":\"CrowdSource Lawyers\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\\\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","og_url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/","og_site_name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","article_modified_time":"2022-05-09T17:45:41+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/","name":"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception - Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-10-25T03:54:37+00:00","dateModified":"2022-05-09T17:45:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/caci-3725-going-and-coming-rule-vehicle-use-exception\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/home\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CACI 3725 Going-and-Coming Rule\u2014Vehicle-Use Exception"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#website","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","name":"Judicial Council California Civil Jury Instructions CACI","description":"California Civil Jury Instructions CACI site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#organization","name":"CrowdSource Lawyers","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/09\/CrowdSource-Logo.png","width":453,"height":208,"caption":"CrowdSource Lawyers"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1987","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1987"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1987\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4467,"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1987\/revisions\/4467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/crowdsourcelawyers.com\/judicial-council-california-civil-jury-instructions-caci\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}