Explore Resources
Home Articles Expert Commentary The Commute Conundrum: The "Going and Coming" Rule
Workers Compensation Issues

The Commute Conundrum: The "Going and Coming" Rule

Beth Young | July 10, 2026

On This Page
businesspeople entering a white commuter van in front of the entrance to an office building

Providing employer-sponsored transportation—whether a daily corporate shuttle or a multipassenger van or bus transporting labor to a jobsite—is an excellent strategy to supplement talent recruitment and reduce parking infrastructure costs. However, from a risk management perspective, shifting the commute from a personal activity to an employer-sponsored operation fundamentally alters a company's risk profile by obfuscating the traditional boundaries of workers compensation law. When an employer controls or funds the transit, an accident during a routine trip to work can result in a catastrophic multiclaim workers compensation event.

The Ultimate Boundary: Erasing the "Going and Coming" Rule

Generally, within US workers compensation law, state courts have found that injuries sustained during a routine commute between home and work are not compensable. This is known as the "going and coming" rule. As an employer has no control over a worker's private vehicle or chosen route, the risk remains entirely with the employee. 1

However, the strength of this defense wanes when transportation is provided by an employer. By offering, funding, or mandating a shared transit option, the vehicle effectively becomes an extension of the workplace. 2 Consequently, any injury occurring during the ride is treated as arising out of and in the course of employment. If a multipassenger van or bus is involved in an accident, every injured employee on board represents a separate workers compensation claim, exposing the employer to potentially high cumulative statutory medical and indemnity costs.

Evaluating the Risks by Transportation Model

The level of workers compensation exposure—and your ability to defend against a claim—depends heavily on how the transit program is structured.

Dedicated Company-Owned or Leased Fleets

This model carries the highest degree of automatic compensability, as it involves the largest degree of control over the environment by the employer. Essentially, the "course of employment" begins as soon as a worker steps into the vehicle. If a company employee is driving a company-owned van along a prescribed route to a jobsite, any accident is almost universally deemed compensable for all employee passengers.

Third-Party Contracted Shuttles

Outsourcing operations to a private charter or shuttle vendor shifts the auto liability risk, but it does not automatically shield the employer from workers compensation claims. Employer-arranged transit is still viewed as employer-provided transit by the courts. If the vendor's van crashes, the injured workers will file workers compensation claims against the employer, regardless of the vendor's third-party fault.

Incentivized Carpools and Travel Stipends

Providing cash allowances, mileage reimbursements, or coordinating peer-to-peer carpooling to remote jobsites introduces a gray area. While possibly not considered as part of the "going and coming" rule, if travel pay or stipends are tied directly to the act of commuting to a distant site or the employer designates a specific employee to drive colleagues in a personal vehicle, courts frequently rule that the commute has been converted into business travel. This commonly results in an accident being deemed compensable under workers compensation.

Solutions and Risk Mitigation Strategies

To limit workers compensation exposure, risk managers should establish clear operational boundaries and enforce safety protocols such as the following.

  • Create a "voluntary convenience" policy. Document in the employee handbook that participation in commuter shuttles is entirely voluntary, free of charge, and provided strictly as a convenience.
  • Establish off-clock status during transit. Explicitly state that nonexempt employees are not performing work and are not on the clock while riding in the vehicle. Hourly wages should only begin upon arrival at the actual jobsite or office, unless statutory or union rules dictate otherwise.
  • Pursue subrogation against third parties. If a third-party driver causes an accident involving your employee transport, your workers compensation insurer can pursue subrogation against the at-fault driver's auto insurance to recover medical and indemnity payments.
  • Include robust indemnification language when contracting with vendors. While you cannot contract away your statutory workers compensation obligations to your employees, you can contractually require the transit vendor to indemnify your business for the financial losses and deductible impacts resulting from those workers compensation claims if their driver was negligent.

Conclusion

While often considered as a casual HR perk, employer-provided transportation can result in significant losses in the event of an accident. While workers compensation tends to be the consistent no-fault remedy pursued by injured workers in order to pay medical expenses and lost time benefits, there is also a risk of potential additional exposure if these employees file liability claims to recoup pain and suffering damages (subject to a workers compensation lien).

By acknowledging that a shared ride effectively extends the workplace boundary, risk managers can proactively structure program policies, clarify employment status during transit, and execute tight contractual risk transfers to protect the organization from a devastating multiclaim loss.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Footnotes

1 See, generally, Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal. 3d 150, 501 P.2d 1176 (1972), for a review of pertinent and instructive cases involving the application of the rule in California.
2 See Hansen v. Estate of Harvey, 119 Idaho 333, 806 P.2d 426 (1991), for a discussion of the employer-provided transportation exception to the "going and coming" rule.