Can I sue the company if its driver hit me?Often yes, when the driver was working.

This page is for people hurt by someone who was driving for a business: in a company van or work truck, on a delivery route, or in the driver's own car. It covers when California law makes the business responsible and the records that prove the driver was working. It does not cover how much insurance stands behind the company, which is in our guide to whose insurance pays. Every company vehicle topic is collected on our Los Angeles commercial vehicle accident lawyer page.

Employer liability for driving

A company can be sued for a crash its employee caused while working. Lawyers call the rule respondeat superior: an employer answers for the wrongful conduct of its employees within the scope of their employment. In Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, the California Supreme Court said the rule "makes an employer liable, irrespective of fault, for negligent driving by its employee in the scope of employment." Negligent driving means driving without the care a reasonable person would use.

The rule dates to 1872. Civil Code section 2338 makes a principal, the person or company an agent acts for, "responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency."

Scope of employment is the phrase most of these cases turn on. California's jury instruction, CACI No. 3720, says conduct is within the scope of employment if it is "reasonably related to the kinds of tasks that the [employee] was employed to perform" or "reasonably foreseeable in light of the employer's business." A delivery route, a service call or a parts run is the kind of driving the rule was built for, but the driver still has to have been negligent.

Breaking a company rule does not take the driver off the job. In Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal.3d 962, a farm worker let a passenger ride on a tractor against the company's no-passenger rule, and the Supreme Court held the scope question should have been decided against the employer as a matter of law. The court quoted a leading torts treatise: "A master cannot escape liability merely by ordering his servant to act carefully."

Questions that decide liability

Six questions, taken in this order, decide most claims against a company for a work driver's crash.

1. 1
   Did the driver work for the company?

   An employee or an agent counts, whatever the company calls the driver. Under CACI No. 3704, the key factor is the company's right to control how the work was done.

2. 2
   Was the driver doing the company's work at that moment?

   Driving that is reasonably related to the job, or foreseeable given the employer's business, meets the CACI No. 3720 test. A purely personal trip does not, even in a company vehicle.

3. 3
   Was the driver commuting?

   The ordinary drive to or from work is generally outside the job. Recognized exceptions include a required vehicle, a business errand, paid travel time and on-call duty with company equipment.

4. 4
   Did the company make its own mistake?

   Hiring, keeping or supervising an unfit driver, or letting one use a company vehicle, is the company's own negligence.

5. 5
   Is the driver called a contractor?

   A contractor can still be an agent, and a carrier operating under public authority cannot hand its safety duties to a contractor.

6. 6
   Is the employer a public agency?

   A city, county, school district or transit agency is liable for its employee's driving on the job under Vehicle Code section 17001, but a written claim is due within six months.

The commuting rule

The going-and-coming rule is the main defense in employee crash cases. CACI No. 3725 states it this way: "In general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while traveling to and from the workplace." Courts have recognized exceptions where the drive itself served the employer, and each turns on facts that records can prove or disprove.

The reasoning behind the required-vehicle exception comes from Huntsinger: when a business requires an employee to drive to and from the office so the vehicle is available during the day, "accidents on the way to or from the office are statistically certain to occur eventually." In Moradi, the planned stops "for frozen yogurt and a yoga class on the way home did not change the incidental benefit to the employer." In Jeewarat, the errand lasted until the employee got home.

Timing can decide the exception. In Newland v. County of Los Angeles (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 676, a deputy public defender used his car for work on some days but not on the day of the crash, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against the county. The note to CACI No. 3725 points out that many other cases applied the exception without a same-day requirement. Proof about the specific day, such as the pay for travel time in Hinman or the tools and parts in the truck in Moreno, is worth gathering early.

Drivers in their own cars

The car does not have to belong to the company; Huntsinger and the salesperson in Moradi both drove their own. A work task in a personal car faces the same scope test as one in a company van. Only the proof is harder, because a personal car usually carries no logo and no fleet tracking.

Chang v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, a Los Angeles County case certified for publication on April 28, 2026, shows how that proof is tested. A physician driving her own car to her office collided with a cyclist while turning to drop Halloween costumes at a dry cleaner. Her texts to coworkers were sent after the crash, and the court held the employer did not have to "negate all possibility" that she was working.

Most of that list sits with the company and its vendors. In a lawsuit it can be demanded in discovery, the formal exchange of evidence before trial. Our guide to evidence after a commercial vehicle crash explains which records a company keeps and for how long.

The company's own negligence

A company can also be liable for its own mistakes, separate from the driver's. CACI No. 426 covers negligent hiring, supervision or retention: the plaintiff proves the employee was or became unfit, that the employer "knew or should have known" it and that the unfitness "created a particular risk to others," and that it caused the harm. Negligent entrustment, under CACI No. 724, is letting someone drive your vehicle when you knew, or should have known, that the person was incompetent or unfit to drive.

California's licensing statutes feed both claims. Vehicle Code section 14606(a) says a person "shall not employ, hire, knowingly permit, or authorize any person to drive" a vehicle the person owns or controls "unless that person is licensed for the appropriate class of vehicle to be driven." In McKenna v. Beesley (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 552, the Court of Appeal held that a jury may find an owner who let an unlicensed driver use the vehicle without a reasonable inquiry "had constructive knowledge of the driver's incompetence to drive." Constructive knowledge is knowledge the law assigns to someone who should have known.

Admissions and punitive damages

Diaz v. Carcamo holds that once an employer admits vicarious liability, meaning responsibility for its employee's driving, the plaintiff cannot also pursue negligent entrustment or hiring claims. Evidence that supported only those claims, such as the driver's earlier crashes, can be kept from the jury, and the employer pays the share of fault the jury assigns to its driver. A footnote left room for employer negligence independent of the driver, for example "when the employer provides the driver with a defective vehicle."

Punitive damages are money awarded to punish and deter, not to compensate, and they are the main exception to the Diaz rule. In CRST, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1255, the Court of Appeal held that when an employer admits vicarious liability, the allegations and evidence of employer misconduct behind a punitive damages claim are not superfluous.

The bar is high. Civil Code section 3294(b) requires proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had advance knowledge of the employee's unfitness and employed the employee "with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others," or authorized or ratified the conduct. For a corporation, that knowledge or approval must belong to "an officer, director, or managing agent." CRST itself won on the facts, because the manager who arguably knew the driver's record did not set company policy.

Contractor drivers

Many companies call their drivers independent contractors. In S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341, the Supreme Court wrote that "the label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced." For a crash claim, CACI No. 3704 tells the jury that the most important factor is whether the company "had the right to control how" the driver performed the work.

AB 5 does not decide this question. Its ABC test, now Labor Code section 2775, applies "for purposes of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the purposes of wage orders." Responsibility for a crash is decided under the common-law control test in CACI No. 3704, whose directions say it addresses the employment relationship "for purposes of assessing vicarious responsibility."

Licensed carriers face a stricter rule. A nondelegable duty is one the law will not let a company hand off to someone else. In Serna v. Pettey Leach Trucking, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1475, the Court of Appeal held a carrier operating under public authority liable for the negligence of its independent contractor, and said "it is only when the carrier is 'not regulated' at all that the rule is otherwise."

Ostensible agency, under CACI No. 3709, reaches a company that created the impression a driver worked for it, but the injured person must prove they "reasonably relied" on that belief, which is hard for a stranger on the road. For app-based drivers, Business and Professions Code section 7451, adopted by Proposition 22, says a qualifying driver "is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent" of the network company. We have not found a published California appellate decision on whether that wording defeats a crash claim. Our page on delivery app driver accidents covers the insurance those companies must carry.

Coworker crashes

If you and the driver worked for the same employer, a different rule usually controls. Labor Code section 3601 makes workers' compensation, the no-fault benefit system for job injuries, the exclusive remedy against a coworker "acting within the scope of his or her employment." It has two exceptions: a "willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression" and the coworker's intoxication.

That exclusive remedy is narrower than it sounds. In Saala v. McFarland (1965) 63 Cal.2d 124, an employee hit by a coworker's car in the employer's parking lot after a shift received workers' compensation, and the Supreme Court held section 3601 did not bar her suit against the coworker. If a different company's driver hit you while you were working, Labor Code section 3852 preserves your claim against "any person other than the employer." Our post on work-related car accidents explains how the two claims run side by side.

Public employers

Government employers answer for their employees' driving too. Vehicle Code section 17001 makes a public entity liable for injury "proximately caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of any motor vehicle by an employee of the public entity acting within the scope of his employment." The going-and-coming rule still applies, and Newland was itself a case against Los Angeles County.

Limits of employer liability

An employer is not responsible for every mile its employees drive. Companies most often win in these situations.

• The ordinary commute. Without an exception, the drive to and from a fixed workplace is outside the job, and Chang (2026) applied that rule to a hybrid worker on an in-office day.
• A finished errand, then a personal trip. In Felix v. Asai (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 926, an employee dropped mail at the post office for his employer and then set out for his parents' home. The court held he "had completely abandoned his employer's business" and was "pursuing a purely personal objective."
• No requirement to use the car. In Savaikie v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 223, a volunteer drove his own car to a pet therapy visit, Kaiser did not require him to use it, and the required-vehicle exception failed.
• A substantial personal detour. CACI No. 3723 treats "incidental personal acts, minor delays, or deviations from the most direct route" as part of the job. A substantial departure for personal reasons, which lawyers call a frolic, is not.

A company that wins on scope can still face a claim for its own negligence. A vehicle owner who let someone drive with permission is also liable under Vehicle Code section 17150, though section 17151 caps that liability at $15,000 for one person and $30,000 for more than one person when it does not arise from employment or agency.

A client of ours was rear-ended at a stoplight by a texting driver who was on the job. The first offer was $31,500, and after a herniated disc and back surgery the case resolved for $1,250,000. Disc injuries like that one are explained on our page about back and neck injuries that are not cord injuries.

Your claim against the company

You can sue the driver in every case, and the company whenever the facts show the driver was doing its work or the company made its own mistake. The commute, a finished errand and a personal detour are where companies win, and the proof for each sits in records the company holds.

We start with the facts that decide scope: the job, the trip and the minute of the crash. Then we request the records that prove them and track the deadline that applies. There is no fee unless we recover.