Does the "going and coming" rule apply in cases where an employer requires an employee to furnish a vehicle of transportation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., 147 Cal.Rptr. 806, 83 Cal.App.3d 377 (Cal. App. 1978):
The "going and coming" rule has also been held inapplicable, however, in cases where the employer requires an employee to furnish a vehicle of transportation on the job. (See Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 8 Cal.3d 150, 160, 104 Cal.Rptr. 456, 501 P.2d 1176; Smith v.
Page 811
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
Does the going and coming rule apply to an employee who is injured in a motor vehicle accident? (California, United States of America)
Does Vehicle Code section 23558 of the California Vehicle Code provide notice of enhancements to a motor vehicle under Vehicle Code Section 12022.7? (California, United States of America)
Is an employer liable for payment of workers' compensation to an employee when the employee sustains an injury arising out of and in the course of the employment? (California, United States of America)
What are the consequences of an order requiring an employer to pay damages to an employee of a plaintiff's employer? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law allowing an employer to defend an employee against an employee in a separate action? (California, United States of America)
When an employer and employee are separately represented by an attorney representing the employee, what is the value of the employee's attorney's services? (California, United States of America)
Does the going and coming rule apply in this case? (California, United States of America)
What are some cases where a state employee has argued that the employment termination procedure used by his employer does not comply with due process safeguards? (California, United States of America)
In a contract impairment case arising out of section 340.9(1) of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Act, is there any case law where the court has found that the provision does not apply to all cases? (California, United States of America)
In a contract impairment case arising out of section 340.9(1) of the California Civil Code of Civil Procedure Act, is there any case law where the court has found that the provision does not apply to all cases? (California, United States of America)
