Required Vehicle Exception to Going and Coming Rule Applies Even When Use of Personal Vehicle Infrequent
Lobo v. Tamco, Lobo v. Tamco, No. E047593 (February 24), is an opinion from Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District dealing with an employer’s liability for a serious automobile accident causing death.В It was uncontested that at the time of the accident the employee was going home, thereby potentially invoking the going and coming rule that bars employer liability under such circumstances.В However, it was also conceded that he kept necessary equipment in his car and would have used the car to visit a customer site had he been asked.В The employer argued that the required use exception to the going and coming rule applies only when use of a personal vehicle for job purposes is “integral” to the job.В Here, it went on, the employee was only very infrequently asked to use his own car to visit a customer site.В The Court of Appeal declined to graft a frequency of use requirement onto the required use exception.В The Court found that the cases support the notion that what is key is whether the employer explicitly or implicitly requires an employee vehicle to be available for work and benefits from that availability.В Here there was testimony that the reason the company did not make a company car available to the employee was because such use was infrequent and therefore the employee’s own vehicle was considered sufficient for such purposes.В Accordingly, the employer’s summary judgments on the motor vehicle and negligence causes of action alleged against it were reversed.
February 24, 2010
Posted in: Blog