California Court of Appeal Clarifies the “Going and Coming” Rule for Hybrid Employees
California employers are generally not liable for accidents employees cause during their ordinary commute to or from work. That principle is known as the “going and coming” rule. But modern work arrangements have made the line harder to draw. What happens when an employee sometimes works from home, sometimes works at the office, uses an employer-issued phone, and may be reachable outside ordinary work hours?
The California Court of Appeal addressed that question in Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a newly published decision involving a serious bicycle-versus-vehicle collision and a physician who worked a hybrid schedule. The court held the employer was not liable because the undisputed evidence showed the physician was engaged in an ordinary commute, not working or traveling between job sites, when the accident occurred.
The Accident
The plaintiff, Kai-Lin Chang, was riding his bicycle in West Hills on the morning of September 12, 2022. According to the complaint, Chang was turning onto Valley Circle when Dr. Brittany Doremus, a physician employed by Southern California Permanente Medical Group, made a left turn in her vehicle and crossed into his path. Chang collided with the vehicle and allegedly suffered injuries requiring hospitalization.
Chang sued both Doremus and SCPMG. His claim against SCPMG was based on respondeat superior, the legal doctrine making an employer liable for torts committed by an employee within the course and scope of employment.
The core question was whether Doremus was acting within the scope of her employment when the accident happened.
The Physician’s Work Schedule and Commute
Doremus worked as a palliative care physician at SCPMG’s Woodland Hills Medical Center. Her schedule included office work at the medical center on Mondays and Tuesdays, remote work for half the day on Wednesdays, hospital work on Thursdays and Fridays, and remote work when she was on call at night or on weekends.
The accident happened on a Monday morning. Doremus testified she left home around 8:30 a.m. to drive to her office at the medical center. At the time of the accident, she was turning into a shopping center parking lot to drop off her children’s Halloween costumes at a dry cleaner. She testified this was a personal errand unrelated to her work.
She also testified she was not doing anything work-related at the moment of the accident, did not recall participating in any phone calls before the accident that morning, was driving her own personal vehicle, and was not required by SCPMG to use that vehicle for work.
After the accident, Doremus called 911 and sent a group text message to coworkers telling them she had been in an accident and asking them to cancel her appointments for the day.
The Employer’s Summary Judgment Motion
SCPMG moved for summary judgment. It argued the case fell squarely within the going and coming rule because Doremus was commuting to work when the collision occurred. Under that rule, employees generally are not considered to be acting within the course and scope of employment while traveling to or from their regular workplace.
SCPMG relied heavily on Doremus’s deposition testimony. It also submitted phone and text records showing no text messages between 8:30 and 8:44 a.m., followed by text messages after the accident in which Doremus informed coworkers she would not be coming in.
Chang opposed the motion. He argued there was a triable issue over whether Doremus had been texting or communicating with coworkers at or near the time of the collision. He also argued Doremus’s hybrid work arrangement changed the analysis because she worked from both home and the medical center. In Chang’s view, Doremus was not merely commuting from home to work, but traveling between work locations.
The trial court rejected those arguments and granted summary judgment for SCPMG. The court found Doremus was commuting to work and running a personal errand when the accident happened. It also found no exception to the going and coming rule applied.
Chang appealed.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for SCPMG. The decision turned on two main points.
First, the court rejected Chang’s argument SCPMG had to eliminate every possible scenario in which Doremus might have been working. That was not the employer’s burden. The employer only needed to make a prima facie showing no triable issue existed. SCPMG did that through Doremus’s deposition testimony, which established she was driving from home to the medical center, was not doing anything work-related, was using her personal vehicle, and was on an ordinary Monday morning commute.
Once SCPMG made that showing, the burden shifted to Chang to produce admissible evidence creating a triable issue. The court held Chang did not meet that burden. His theory Doremus might have been texting coworkers before the accident, or might have had another phone, was speculation unsupported by evidence.
Second, the court rejected Chang’s broader hybrid-work argument. The court acknowledged Doremus sometimes worked from home. But that did not convert her home into a second worksite “for all purposes.” On Mondays, including the day of the accident, she worked at the medical center. The uncontradicted evidence showed she was driving from home to her office at the start of the workday. That was an ordinary commute, not travel between job sites.
The court explained a hybrid employee who works both at home and in the office is not automatically acting within the scope of employment whenever traveling between home and office. On an in-office day, the employee’s commute remains a commute unless some exception applies.
Why the Decision Is Important
This decision gives California employers helpful guidance in the post-pandemic workplace. Hybrid work arrangements are common, and employees may use employer-issued phones, communicate with coworkers remotely, and perform some duties from home. But this case confirms those facts alone do not erase the going and coming rule.
The court’s reasoning is practical. If an employee’s occasional remote work automatically made the home a second jobsite for every commute, employers could face expanded tort liability any time a hybrid employee drove to the office. The court declined to adopt that rule. It warned doing so would effectively eliminate the going and coming rule for employees who sometimes work from home and could discourage employers from offering flexible work arrangements.
For employers, the case also reinforces the importance of evidence. SCPMG prevailed because it had testimony establishing what the employee was doing at the time of the accident. The employee’s schedule, the reason for the trip, the nature of the vehicle, and whether the employee was performing work all became central facts.
For plaintiffs, the decision shows speculation is not enough to defeat summary judgment. A plaintiff cannot rely on the mere possibility an employee might have been working, texting, using another phone, or communicating with coworkers. There must be admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
California employers should not assume every commute by a hybrid employee is protected by the going and coming rule. Exceptions can still apply. For example, liability may arise if the employee is on a special errand for the employer, is required to use a personal vehicle for work, is performing work while driving, or is traveling between actual worksites.
But Chang confirms a narrower and more employer-friendly point: when a hybrid employee is simply driving from home to the office on a regular in-office day, using a personal vehicle, and not performing work at the time of the accident, the going and coming rule may still protect the employer from respondeat superior liability.
Employers with hybrid workers should consider documenting work schedules, expectations for remote work, personal vehicle use, on-call duties, and when travel is or is not considered part of the job. Those details can become important if an accident occurs.
Conclusion
Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group is a significant California decision for employers navigating hybrid work. The Court of Appeal did not create a special liability rule for remote or hybrid employees. Instead, it applied traditional respondeat superior principles to modern facts.
The result is a common-sense holding: sometimes working from home does not make every trip from home to the office a work trip. When the employee is engaged in an ordinary commute, and no exception applies, the going and coming rule still applies.
Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group was filed on April 9, 2026, and certified for publication on April 28, 2026, by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, Case No. B340770. The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Southern California Permanente Medical Group, holding the going-and-coming rule barred employer liability because the employee was engaged in an ordinary morning commute, not working or traveling between worksites, when the accident occurred.