The “Coming and Going” Rule: When Are Commutes Covered by Workers’ Comp?

When it comes to workers’ compensation, a common misconception is that any injury sustained while traveling to or from work is automatically covered. This is often not the case due to a foundational principle known as the “Coming and Going” Rule. This rule, however, is not absolute and comes with a significant number of exceptions that can turn a seemingly personal commute into a work-related incident.

This article isn’t legal advice for your specific situation. Instead, it’s a deep dive into the “behind the scenes” of the “Coming and Going” Rule, exploring what it is, and more importantly, *why it exists* and its critical exceptions, based on my systematic approach to legal research.

What is the “Coming and Going” Rule?

At its core, the “Coming and Going” Rule dictates that injuries sustained by an employee while traveling to or from their regular place of work are generally not considered to have arisen “in the course of employment” and are thus typically not covered by workers’ compensation. The commute is usually seen as a personal activity, separate from one’s job duties.

The “Why”: Policy Goals Behind the Rule

The rationale behind the “Coming and Going” Rule stems from several policy considerations:

• Employer Control: Employers generally have no control over the public roads, traffic conditions, or personal decisions an employee makes during their commute. Holding them liable for risks they cannot control is seen as fundamentally unfair.
• Predictability and Scope: The rule provides a clear and predictable boundary for workers’ compensation liability, preventing employers from facing indefinite and boundless responsibility for events occurring outside of the work environment.
• Personal Responsibility: The act of commuting is largely viewed as a personal undertaking and responsibility of the employee to get themselves to their fixed place of employment.

Navigating Nuance: Key Exceptions to the Rule

While the rule seems straightforward, legal research reveals that courts have developed numerous exceptions to address situations where the employer does exert some level of control, derives a benefit from the travel, or the nature of the employment inherently involves travel. Understanding these exceptions is crucial:

• Employer-Provided Transportation: If the employer furnishes the vehicle or arranges and pays for the employee’s transportation to and from work, an injury during that travel may be covered.
• Employer-Paid Travel Time or Expenses: When an employer pays for the employee’s travel time or directly reimburses commuting expenses, it can imply that the travel is part of the job, and injuries may be compensable.
• Dual Purpose Doctrine: This applies when an employee’s commute serves not only a personal objective but also a substantial work-related purpose at the employer’s request or for their benefit. For example, stopping to pick up supplies for the office on the way to work.
• Special Mission or Errand: If an employee is required to perform a special errand or mission for the employer outside of their regular work hours or normal commuting routine, injuries sustained during such travel are often covered.
• Travel as Part of Employment (Traveling Employee): For jobs where travel is an inherent and continuous part of the employment (e.g., sales representatives, delivery drivers, field technicians), the employee is often considered to be “in the course of employment” even during travel, subject to specific limitations.
• Hazardous Premises Rule (or Premises Exception): Injuries occurring on the employer’s premises (e.g., inside the building, in an employer-owned or controlled parking lot) or in the immediate, necessary means of ingress and egress to those premises, are typically covered, even if they happen before or after official work hours.
• Employer-Required Travel: If the employer requires an employee to travel to a location other than their regular workplace, injuries during such specific travel are usually covered.

These exceptions demonstrate that the “Coming and Going” Rule is not a rigid barrier but rather a starting point for analysis, with many pathways to coverage depending on the specific facts and the employer’s involvement in or benefit from the travel.

Bringing it All Together

The “Coming and Going” Rule in workers’ compensation serves to define the boundaries of employer liability for injuries occurring outside the direct work environment. However, the numerous and often intricate exceptions highlight the legal system’s attempt to achieve fairness when an employee’s travel is influenced by, benefits, or is directly controlled by their employment. Understanding these nuances is vital for anyone assessing the compensability of a commute-related injury.

Always remember: This information is for educational purposes only. I am not a lawyer and do not provide legal advice. For specific legal guidance regarding your personal injury matter, you must consult with a qualified Colorado workers’ compensation attorney.