Injuries during the ride to or from work are the classic example of a risk that comp systems generally do not cover. The going-and-coming rule treats the commute as a personal activity, not part of the job. The rule is a presumption, though, and the exceptions are broad enough that a meaningful share of commute-related claims are compensable. Applicant attorneys should always ask what the worker was carrying, driving, or doing when the crash occurred.
The Rule and Its Rationale
Under the going-and-coming rule, an employee injured while traveling between home and a fixed place of employment is not within the course of employment. The rationale is that the employment relationship begins when the worker arrives at the workplace and ends when the worker leaves, and that the employer does not control the route or means of travel. The rule exists in nearly every state, in different forms and under different names, and its exceptions are shaped by statute and precedent in each jurisdiction.
The Principal Exceptions
The exceptions fall into recurring categories. Check each against your state's authority, since the boundaries differ.
- Special mission or errand. If the employer asked the worker to run a work-related errand on the way to or from work, such as picking up supplies, making a delivery, or stopping at a client site, the trip may be within the course of employment. The question is whether the trip served the employer's business and was requested or expected, not merely a personal stop that the worker chose.
- Required vehicle. Some jurisdictions recognize an exception where the employer requires the employee to bring a personal vehicle to work for use in the job. The employer's requirement turns the commute into a benefit to the business. A mere benefit from having a car available is generally not enough; the vehicle must be required or an incident of employment.
- Employer-provided transportation. If the employer provides the transport, or pays for it as an incident of employment, the trip may be covered. This can include company vans and shuttles as well as travel arrangements that are part of an employment contract.
- Compensated travel time. When the worker is paid for commute time, or the employer controls the travel, the case for coverage grows stronger. In some places, pay for travel time is evidence but not conclusive.
- Dual-purpose trips. Where the trip combines a business purpose and a personal one, many jurisdictions apply a test asking whether the business purpose would have required the trip even if the personal one had been cancelled.
- Employer premises and the proximity rule. Injuries in parking lots, access roads, and areas controlled by the employer, or in the zone immediately adjacent, may be treated as on the premises. Courts differ on how far this reaches, particularly for public streets and shared lots.
- Traveling employees and on-call workers. Employees whose job requires travel, or who are on call with a duty to respond, may have a different baseline. We discuss this separately in our coverage of AOE/COE analysis.
Evidence That Wins These Cases
Facts determine whether an exception applies. Build the record immediately.
- Get the worker's account of what they were carrying, who asked them to do what, and whether they had a business stop planned.
- Collect communications showing the employer's request or instruction, such as texts, emails, schedules, or dispatch messages. Phone records and navigation data can show the route and any work-related calls in progress.
- Obtain any written policies on use of personal vehicles, mileage reimbursement, travel pay, and company transportation.
- Interview coworkers and supervisors about practices, since an unwritten expectation may be enough to show the vehicle or errand was required.
- Document equipment, tools, or materials in the vehicle that were for work.
Mileage reimbursement is important: payment for use of the personal vehicle during the day suggests the vehicle was an incident of employment, though courts treat it as one factor.
Defense Positions to Expect
The defense will argue that the worker was on a personal frolic, that carrying tools was a convenience and not a requirement, and that any errand was voluntary. It may also raise intoxication or willful misconduct defenses, and the usual issues around notice and reporting. Answer with a consistent narrative of the employer's expectations, supported by corroborating documents and testimony from supervisors who can describe the practice in the workplace.
Third-Party Claims
Commute crashes often involve another driver, so a civil claim is typically available regardless of the comp outcome. If the comp claim succeeds, the employer or carrier may have a lien on the third-party recovery, and the interaction can reduce net recovery. If the comp claim fails, no lien applies, which can make a clean civil settlement simpler. Consider this when deciding how hard to pursue an uncertain comp claim. Our articles on liens and settlement describe how comp credits and liens are calculated.
Practical Intake Questions
- Where was the worker coming from or going to, and why?
- Did the employer ask the worker to do anything related to work on the trip?
- Was the worker required to use a personal vehicle, or did the employer reimburse mileage?
- Was the worker on call, traveling between sites, or carrying work items?
- Where exactly did the injury occur, and who controlled that location?
Always confirm current state authority before filing, since the exceptions continue to be refined by appellate decisions.