How Vicarious Liability Can Help You Hold a Company Responsible in California

If you were injured by someone who was “on the job,” you may be able to pursue the company—not just the individual—through a legal concept called vicarious liability. This matters because companies often have larger insurance policies, clearer paths to recovery, and legal duties to supervise and control how work is done.

Below are the key decision factors that typically determine whether vicarious liability can help you sue a company in California.

• Was the person working for the company? Employee status is a major trigger for vicarious liability.
• Were they acting within the “course and scope” of the job? Work-related purpose is often the central issue.
• What exactly were they doing at the time? Driving, deliveries, sales calls, site visits, and service calls are common.
• Was the worker on a personal errand or “frolic”? Detours can be covered; major personal departures often are not.
• Is the worker an independent contractor? Many contractor situations require other theories (or specific exceptions) instead of vicarious liability.
• Is there an employer vehicle, uniform, job tools, or company equipment involved? These facts can support the work connection.
• Do communications or dispatch records show the job assignment? Time stamps, work orders, and GPS logs can be decisive.
• Is there a separate claim against the company for its own wrongdoing? Negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention can apply even when vicarious liability is disputed.

What “Vicarious Liability” Means (and Why It Can Change Your Case)

Vicarious liability is a rule that can make an employer responsible for harm caused by an employee when the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment. In many personal injury cases, this is the legal bridge between an individual’s negligence and the company’s responsibility.

Key idea: it’s not about the company “ordering” the accident

Vicarious liability is often based on the employment relationship and the employer’s ability to control how work is performed—not on proof that the company personally acted negligently in that moment.

Common situations where this comes up

• Car crashes caused by a worker driving to a jobsite, making deliveries, or traveling between work locations
• Service calls (plumbers, HVAC, cable installers) where the worker enters homes or drives between appointments
• On-site injuries involving employees using tools, machinery, forklifts, or other equipment
• Business-related errands like banking deposits, picking up supplies, or client meetings

When a Company Is Typically On the Hook: “Course and Scope of Employment”

In California, the question is often whether the employee was furthering the employer’s business at the time of the incident. This can be straightforward (a delivery route) or heavily disputed (commuting, lunch breaks, after-hours travel).

Facts that often support “course and scope”

• The worker was on the clock or being paid for time/travel
• The activity benefited the employer (delivery, client visit, jobsite travel)
• The employer set the route, schedule, or assignment
• The worker used a company vehicle or company-provided tools
• The worker was in uniform or otherwise representing the business
• Dispatch logs, work orders, or messages show it was a work task

Facts that can weaken “course and scope”

• A substantial personal deviation (a “frolic”) unrelated to work
• After-hours conduct with no ongoing business purpose
• Unauthorized use of a vehicle for purely personal activities

Vicarious Liability vs. Direct Negligence by the Company

It’s important to separate two different pathways to suing a company:

• Vicarious liability: The company is responsible for an employee’s negligence committed in the course and scope of employment—even if the company did nothing “wrong” itself at that moment.
• Direct negligence: The company may be liable for its own conduct, such as negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent training, negligent retention, or unsafe policies and procedures.

In real cases, these theories are often pleaded together while evidence is gathered. One theory may be stronger than the other depending on whether the worker is truly an employee, what the employer knew, and what policies were in place.

Decision Checklist Table: Will Vicarious Liability Likely Apply?

If/Then: Quick Outcomes Based on Common Fact Patterns

• If the driver was making deliveries, traveling between jobsites, or running a work errand, then vicarious liability is often a strong path to suing the company.
• If the person was commuting normally to or from work with no special assignment, then the company may argue the “going-and-coming” rule (often limiting vicarious liability), though exceptions can apply.
• If the company says the worker was an independent contractor, then the case may turn on the true nature of control and other exceptions—plus potential direct negligence claims.
• If the worker took a major personal detour unrelated to work, then the employer may dispute course-and-scope; detailed timeline evidence becomes critical.
• If a supervisor directed the task or the worker was following company procedures, then it is typically easier to connect the conduct to employment.

Common Exceptions, Gray Areas, and “It Depends” Situations in California

The “going-and-coming” (commute) issue

Employers often argue they are not liable for accidents during an employee’s normal commute. But commuting is not always the end of the story. Work-required travel, paid travel time, jobsite-to-jobsite driving, or a “special errand” can change the analysis.

Independent contractors and “misclassification” problems

Many businesses classify workers as independent contractors. That label is not always decisive. The underlying facts—such as the right to control the work, the tools provided, required procedures, or schedule control—can matter. Even when vicarious liability is not available, other theories may apply depending on the circumstances.

Intentional conduct vs. negligence

Vicarious liability disputes can get more complex if the harm involves intentional misconduct rather than negligence. Whether the conduct is closely connected to the job duties can become a central battleground.

Multiple employers or joint control

Some workers effectively operate under more than one company’s direction (for example, staffing situations or layered contractors). In those cases, identifying the proper responsible parties can require careful review of contracts, supervision, and who controlled day-to-day work.

What Evidence Usually Makes or Breaks a Vicarious Liability Claim

Because insurers and corporate defendants often challenge course-and-scope, documentation can be the difference between a quick resolution and a prolonged dispute.

High-value evidence to preserve early

• Crash report / incident report and any supplemental reports
• Photos and video from the scene, vehicles, uniforms, logos, and equipment
• Witness statements (including coworkers, dispatchers, property staff)
• Employer communications (texts, emails, app messages) showing assignments or timing
• Work orders, dispatch logs, GPS/telematics and route tracking
• Timesheets and payroll records showing on-duty status and paid travel time
• Vehicle documentation (registration, fleet affiliation, maintenance logs, dash cam footage)
• Medical records connecting the incident to injuries (diagnosis, imaging, treatment plan)

Why speed matters

Some key records—especially video, GPS logs, and internal communications—may be retained only briefly. Prompt action can help preserve evidence before it is overwritten or lost.

What Insurance Companies Commonly Argue (and What It Means for You)

When a company’s insurance carrier sees an opportunity to limit exposure, it often focuses on distancing the employer from the worker’s conduct. Common positions include:

• “They weren’t working.” The insurer may claim the worker was off-duty, on break, or done for the day.
• “They were on a personal detour.” Expect scrutiny of where the worker was headed and why.
• “Independent contractor.” Label-based arguments are common, even when the facts suggest control by the company.
• “No permission to use the vehicle.” They may argue unauthorized use breaks the employer connection.
• “Comparative fault.” California comparative negligence can reduce damages if you are found partially at fault.
• “Causation and medical disputes.” Even if liability is established, carriers often challenge injury severity, pre-existing conditions, and treatment necessity.

Understanding these arguments helps you focus on what you need to document: timing, assignment, work purpose, and a clear medical timeline.

Example Scenario (Hypothetical): Using Vicarious Liability to Sue a Company After a Crash

Hypothetical: A Los Angeles driver is rear-ended by a van with a company logo. The van driver admits they were “trying to finish their last stop” and shows a phone screen with a delivery app and a customer address. The company later claims the driver was an independent contractor and “off the clock.”

• What could support vicarious liability: The logo van suggests company involvement; delivery app data and messages can show an active job; GPS route history may confirm the task was in progress; pay records may show paid time or incentives that link to job performance.
• What could be disputed: Whether the driver was an employee or contractor; whether they were still performing work at the time; and whether any detour was substantial.
• Other potential claims: If evidence shows the company pushed unsafe delivery quotas, ignored prior driving complaints, or failed to train, direct negligence theories (negligent supervision/training) may be explored.

This is the type of fact pattern where early evidence preservation (app logs, telematics, dispatch records) can shape the outcome.

What You Can Recover If the Company Is Liable

Vicarious liability is about who pays, not a special category of damages. If the company is legally responsible for the employee’s negligence, typical California personal injury damages may include:

• Medical expenses (past and future)
• Lost income and loss of earning capacity
• Property damage (in vehicle cases)
• Pain and suffering and other non-economic losses
• Out-of-pocket costs tied to the injury (as supported by documentation)

In some cases, multiple insurance layers may be involved—personal auto coverage, commercial auto policies, umbrella coverage, or policies tied to a specific jobsite.

Mistakes That Can Undercut a Vicarious Liability Case

• Assuming the company will “do the right thing” without preserving evidence. Practical reality: insurers make decisions based on proof.
• Only pursuing the individual at-fault person. If a company may be responsible, the case strategy can change significantly.
• Waiting too long to seek medical care or follow up. Gaps in treatment can become causation arguments.
• Posting about the incident or injuries on social media. Posts can be taken out of context and used against you.
• Giving a detailed recorded statement without preparation. Statements can lock you into an incomplete timeline before you have records.

How These Claims Are Typically Built (Without Overcomplicating It)

Vicarious liability cases often turn into documentation cases. The goal is to clearly establish:

• Identity: Who caused the harm and who they were working for
• Status: Employee relationship (or another basis to hold the company responsible)
• Purpose: The work-related reason for the conduct at the time
• Medical causation: Clear connection between the incident and your injuries
• Damages: The real-world impact on your health, income, and daily life

When those elements are supported by records—dispatch info, payroll, internal communications, and medical documentation—companies have fewer ways to deny responsibility.

FAQ

Can I sue a company if an employee hits me with their car in California?

Answer: Often yes, if the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment. The details of their work purpose, timing, and assignment are usually critical.

What if the employee was driving their personal car?

Answer: A personal vehicle does not automatically block vicarious liability. If the driving was for work (jobsite travel, deliveries, errands), the employer may still be responsible.

What if the company says the driver was an independent contractor?

Answer: That argument is common and may or may not hold up depending on the real relationship and level of control. Even if vicarious liability is contested, other claims against the company may be available depending on the facts.

Is a company liable if the employee was commuting?

Answer: Sometimes, but not always. Normal commuting is often disputed under the going-and-coming rule, while paid travel time, special errands, and jobsite-to-jobsite driving can change the analysis.

Do I have to prove the company did something wrong to use vicarious liability?

Answer: Not necessarily. Vicarious liability can apply based on the employment relationship and work-related activity, even without separate proof of negligent hiring or training.

What should I do right away if I suspect the at-fault person was working?

Answer: Document the employer connection immediately (photos of logos/badges, statements about work tasks, witness info) and seek medical evaluation. Records created early often become the foundation of the claim.

Talk to a California Personal Injury Lawyer About Suing the Company

If your injury involved a driver, worker, or on-site employee who may have been performing job duties, vicarious liability could be the reason a company is legally responsible. A focused review of records—work status, dispatch information, vehicle ownership, and timelines—can clarify whether the employer should be part of the claim.

For help evaluating a potential case and understanding your options, you can contact Jacob Emrani at CallJacob.com for a consultation.

Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information about California personal injury law and vicarious liability. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts. If you need advice about your situation, speak with a qualified attorney.