The Rule of Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group is that the "going and coming rule" applies to hybrid workers when they are commuting to their office on scheduled in-office days, even if they sometimes work from home, under circumstances where the employee's home is not a worksite on the day of the accident and the employee is engaged in an ordinary commute to their primary workplace.
Appeal from judgment after summary judgment motion in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
Defendant Appellant was Kai-Lin Chang — the bicyclist who was injured in a collision and sued the medical group under respondeat superior theory.
Plaintiff Respondent was Southern California Permanente Medical Group — the employer of the driver who allegedly caused the accident while commuting to work.
The suit sounded in negligence under respondeat superior liability theory.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that on Monday, September 12, 2022, at approximately 8:40 a.m., Chang was riding his bicycle when SCPMG employee Dr. Brittany Doremus made a left turn in her vehicle, crossing into Chang's path and causing a collision that injured Chang. Doremus was driving from her home to her office at the medical center, having stopped at a dry cleaner for a personal errand. Doremus worked at the medical center on Mondays and Tuesdays, worked from home half-day on Wednesdays, worked at the hospital on Thursdays and Fridays, and worked from home when on call. Her deposition testimony established she was not doing anything work-related at the time of the accident and was not communicating with coworkers before the collision.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted SCPMG's summary judgment motion, ruling that Doremus was commuting to work at the time of the accident and therefore the "going and coming rule" exempted SCPMG from respondeat superior liability for her alleged tort.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether SCPMG made a sufficient prima facie showing that no triable issue of material fact existed regarding whether Doremus was acting within the scope of employment 2. Whether the going and coming rule should apply to a "hybrid" worker who sometimes works from home but was commuting to her office on a scheduled in-office day
The Appellate Court held that SCPMG met its burden through Doremus's deposition testimony establishing she was not working at the time of the accident, and Chang failed to present contradictory evidence creating a triable issue. The court further held that the going and coming rule applies to hybrid workers commuting to their office on scheduled in-office days, as Doremus was engaged in an ordinary Monday morning commute to her medical center office, not traveling between worksites.
The case is inapplicable when the hybrid employee is actually traveling between two active worksites on the day of the accident, when the employee's home is an active worksite on the specific day in question, or when other established exceptions to the going and coming rule apply (such as special errands, employer-required vehicle use, or incidental employer benefits beyond ordinary commuting).
The case leaves open the question of how the going and coming rule would apply to fully remote workers or workers with no fixed primary workplace, and whether different analysis might apply in workers' compensation cases versus tort liability cases involving hybrid work arrangements.
Counsel
For Appellant: Alexander & Yong, Jeffrey S. Yong; The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin
For Respondent: Manning Gross + Massenburg, Brent M. Karren, Carrie S. Lin, Eli J. Drummond