Genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether construction employer’s yard amounted to a worksite, such that the employer could claim exemption based on the going and coming rule from liability for injuries caused by employee on his way from home to the yard. The trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment based on the going and coming rule. The construction worker who caused the accident was on his way from his home to the employer’s “yard” where he would switch from his car to a company truck to transport materials and personnel to the jobsite. The worker was paid only for his time once he reached the jobsite. If the “yard” was the employee’s “worksite,” then the going and coming rule exempted the employer from liability for the employee’s commute to and from the yard. But if the “worksite” was the jobsite, then the employee’s trip to work via the yard could be a special or business errand for the employer, subjecting the employer to liability for the entire trip. A question of fact existed as to which location was the proper worksite in this case.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3 (Moore, Acting P.J.); April 13, 2017 (modified April 18, 2017); 2017 WL 1383700