## Facts

- Bruce Wayne Brandon worked for A.R.B., Inc. as a pipefitter at a remote job site not served by public transportation.
- Because employees had to drive personal vehicles to the site, A.R.B. paid a flat daily travel allowance for use of private cars to get to work.
- After finishing his workday, Brandon drove his personal car home and offered a co-worker a ride.
- While driving home from the job site, Brandon collided with Caldwell’s vehicle, injuring Caldwell.
- Caldwell sued Brandon for negligence and sued A.R.B., Inc. on a respondeat superior theory, alleging Brandon acted within the scope of employment.
- A.R.B. did not own Brandon’s car and did not direct his route or control the manner of his commute.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee driving home from a remote job site in a personal vehicle is acting within the scope of employment when the employer pays a flat daily travel allowance for commuting.
2. Whether the travel allowance triggers an exception to the “going and coming” rule sufficient to impose respondeat superior liability on the employer.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for A.R.B., Inc.
- Brandon was not acting within the scope of his employment while commuting home.
- A flat daily travel allowance, without employer control over transportation, did not transform the commute into employer business.
- No exception to the going-and-coming rule applied on the undisputed facts, so scope of employment was a legal question properly resolved on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under respondeat superior, an employer is liable only for torts committed by an employee within the course and scope of employment.
- The going-and-coming rule generally places ordinary commuting to and from work outside the scope of employment.
- Payment of a flat commuting or travel allowance, standing alone, does not bring an employee’s commute within the scope of employment.
- Scope-of-employment analysis emphasizes whether the activity is subject to employer control or is a risk typical of, or broadly incidental to, the employer’s enterprise.
- Where material facts about the commute are undisputed, whether the employee acted within the scope of employment may be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee’s post-shift drive home in a personal vehicle remains an ordinary commute excluded by the going-and-coming rule, and a flat travel allowance for reaching a remote worksite does not, by itself, create vicarious employer liability for a commute-related accident.


Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc., 176 Cal. App. 3d 1028, 222 Cal. Rptr. 494 (Ct. App. 1986)