What if a driver was working when the crash happened?
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalThe driver’s employer may also have to pay. This can apply when the driver was doing work within the scope of the job.
In this guide
Here’s an example
A worker drives from one job site to the next. They cause a crash on the way.
A made-up example to explain the idea. Your facts may lead to a different answer.How the rule works
Scope of employment is a legal term for the link between a worker’s acts and the job. That link can affect whether the employer must answer for the harm. It depends on the facts.
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 trip to work or a personal errand may be treated differently. The work duties and trip purpose matter. A logo on a car is not enough to decide.
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 trip details. Ask what role the driver had in the business.
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.