What Is the “Going and Coming Rule”?

The going and coming rule is a judicially created doctrine that helps define whether an injury occurred “in the course of employment” under California Labor Code § 3600(a). As the California Supreme Court stated in Price v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 559, 564–565:

“An injury suffered ‘during a local commute en route to a fixed place of business at fixed hours in the absence of special or extraordinary circumstances’ is not within the course of employment. As such, it is not compensable.”

This doctrine rests on the long-standing principle that the employment relationship is generally suspended from the time the employee leaves their work to go home until they resume their work. (Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345 [220 Cal.Rptr. 94, 708 P.2d 673].)

In a recent panel decision in Hernandez v. Ceja Reyes, Inc./Zenith Insurance Company ADJ16567838 (WCAB panel decision 5/29/24) reconsideration was denied concerning the application of the “going and coming rule” and the WCAB determined that, under both the “special risk” and “dual purpose” exceptions, worker’s compensation coverage did apply to the injuries respondent Javier Hernandez sustained while riding home in a vanpool arranged by another employee. In its petition for writ of review, petitioner Zenith Insurance Company argues the Board’s findings are based on legal error and not supported by substantial evidence. Zenith also argues Hernandez’s injury is non-compensable because it falls within the scope of the going and coming rule and the exceptions relied upon by the Board do not apply to the facts before us. The case was annulled and remanded to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Zenith Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1164.

Why This Decision Matters

The Zenith decision, alongside Price, serves as a roadmap for claims and defense attorneys navigating the legal and factual complexities of going and coming rule cases. Key takeaways include:

1. Special Risk Exception

This exception applies where the commute itself involves a risk peculiar to the job—e.g., employer-required travel through dangerous areas or use of special transportation. The facts must show that the risk was distinct from those faced by the general public.

• The Court of Appeal found that the Board stretched its logic with the special risk exception far beyond prior case law and created an exception that could apply any time an employer hired a person without a driver’s license or car.
  • At issue: The Board had determined that the employer’s decision to hire a worker that had no transportation to get to work on his own required him to make special arrangements for a vanpool that by its nature, exposed him to a particular risk, was distinctive in nature, and not shared by the general public. Further, the Board said these were unique and special risks that the employer took by hiring an employee that could not drive, had no car, drivers license and who needed to be at work on time 60 miles away from home.

2. Dual Purpose Exception

The court concisely restates this doctrine: when the employee is engaged in a work-related mission concurrent with their commute (e.g., transporting materials, meeting clients), the injury may fall within the course of employment.

• In Zenith, the Court of Appeal found that the vanpool trip home DID NOT serve a dual purpose and that it did not support the argument that work was performed in the van or at home.
  • At issue: The Board had said that the vanpool trip home did serve a dual purpose because the employer is in the business of providing agricultural laborers to businesses. Applicant argued that he performed work while in the van because he would receive his job assignment while physically in the van. Further, the supervisor told the workers that the van owner was in charge of them while they were using the van.

3. Going and Coming Rule Clarified

Routine commutes do not qualify as employment-related unless the facts present special or extraordinary circumstances.

4. Standard of Review

The opinion reinforces the limited appellate review of WCAB decisions. The Court’s focus is on whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings and whether the correct legal standard was applied.

Practical Guidance

If you’re handed a potential going and coming case, Zenith can and should be your starting point whether for purposes of analyzing compensability with and for your employer clients or helping your defense attorney in preparing a draft pre-trial brief.

Here’s how we suggest you put this case to use:

• File Review: Use the framework from the decision to identify which exceptions might be alleged. Map the facts against the going and coming rule and its exceptions, so you can ask the right questions in your initial contact with your employer client so that you can take statements of key witnesses, collect & documentary evidence.
• PTCS Prep: Provide the names and contact information to your defense attorneys of those Identified key witnesses, documents, and other exhibits that will support your theory. Your attorneys will then build these into your PTCS checklist and case chronology.
• “Evidence Will Show” Section: Draft this early. The panel decision’s structure will help guide how you present the anticipated testimony and exhibit narrative.
• Trial Strategy: These cases often hinge on fact-specific testimony—travel patterns, employer directives, and nature of the work. Make sure to lock in these facts.
• Post-Trial: Always order a transcript. Because these cases often go up on reconsideration, the trial transcript becomes essential. Update your brief into a draft petition for reconsideration or response, including pinpoint transcript citations and exhibit references.

Final Thoughts

Going and coming rule cases are deceptively complex. They seem routine—but they’re not. Each case requires careful analysis, factual development, and strategic foresight. The Zenith v. WCAB (Hernandez) decision is a compact but powerful tool for navigating this tricky doctrine.

References:

• Zenith Ins. Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.(2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1164.
• Price v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.(1984) 37 Cal.3d 559 [209 Cal.Rptr. 674, 693 P.2d 254].

Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345 [220 Cal.Rptr. 94, 708 P.2d 673].