Can a business be responsible for its worker?
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalA business may have to pay for harm caused by its worker. This can apply when the worker was acting within the scope of the job.
In this guide
Here’s an example
A delivery worker hits a person on a bike while taking a package to a customer.
A made-up example to explain the idea. Your facts may lead to a different answer.How the rule works
The key issue is the link between the work and the harmful act. A business can face a claim for a worker’s acts even if the business owner was not there.
Legal references: [1] Civil Code § 2338 — Responsibility for an agent’s conduct · [2] CACI No. 400–401 — Negligence and the standard of care (2026 edition)
What can change the answer?
A job title alone does not decide the case. A personal errand or a contractor’s role can change the answer. The details of the work matter.
Court decisions behind this answer
A case can help explain a rule. Its facts and limits matter too.
Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc.
Supreme Court of California · 1986
41 Cal.3d 962, pp. 967–970
A worker could still be doing the employer’s work despite breaking a rule against giving a ride.
This does not make every personal trip a work trip. Scope of employment depends on the work and facts.
Case applicability reviewed as recorded above.
A useful next step
Save the business name and vehicle markings. Note what work the person was doing at the time.
If you are unsure which rule applies, a lawyer can review your facts and any deadlines. Learn about GJEL’s injury representation.
The law behind this guide
The references below support the legal discussion. Their application depends on the facts.
- Civil Code § 2338 — Responsibility for an agent’s conduct ↗Statute · Review recorded above
- CACI No. 400–401 — Negligence and the standard of care (2026 edition) ↗Jury instructions · Review recorded above
- Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962 ↗Case law · Review recorded above
Updated 2026-11-04. Read our editorial standards.