Can I hold the driver's employer or the car's owner responsible for a crash in California?

The driver who caused a crash may have little or no insurance, or may have been driving a company truck, a relative's car or a rental. In the auto accident cases we handle, finding every party who answers for the driver's conduct can make the difference between a claim that covers the injury and one that does not. California recognizes three main routes: the employer, the owner who gave permission, and the owner who should have known the driver was unfit.

This guide explains each route, its limits, and the facts that decide whether it applies.

How do you find everyone who may be responsible, step by step?

1. Identify the driver and the registered owner. The crash report usually lists both; they are not always the same person.
2. Ask why the driver was on the road. Was it a delivery, a sales call, a job site trip, a work errand, or a personal trip? The answer decides whether the employer is involved.
3. Apply the scope of employment rules. A principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of its agent in the business of the agency (Civil Code 2338), and the jury instructions in the CACI 3700 series explain how scope of employment is decided.
4. Check the commute exceptions. Commuting is generally outside the scope of employment, but not when the employer requires the employee's car to be available for work, when the employee is on an errand for the employer, or when the employer pays for travel time (CACI 3725 to 3727).
5. Apply the owner's permissive-use liability. An owner is liable for injury caused by anyone driving with express or implied permission (Vehicle Code 17150), within the limits in section 17151.
6. Consider negligent entrustment. An owner who knew or should have known the driver was incompetent or unfit, and let them drive, can be liable for their own negligence (CACI 724).
7. Notify every insurer. The driver's, the employer's and the owner's policies may each respond.

Which route applies, and what are its limits?

When is an employee driving "within the scope of employment"?

An employee making deliveries, driving between job sites, visiting customers or running a work errand is usually within the scope of employment. The harder cases involve commuting, side trips and personal detours.

The jury instructions describe the "going-and-coming rule": in general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while traveling to and from the workplace (CACI 3725). There are exceptions. If the employer requires the employee to drive their own car to work so that it is available for the employer's business, the commute is within the scope (CACI 3725). If the employee is on an errand for the employer while commuting, the conduct is within the scope from the start of the errand until the employee returns or completely abandons it for personal reasons (CACI 3726). The Judicial Council's notes add that commute time is within the scope of employment if the employer pays the employee for that time (CACI 3727 and the notes to 3723).

Whether a personal detour takes the driver outside the scope is a question of how substantial the deviation was (CACI 3723). For a crash with a company vehicle, evidence such as delivery logs, GPS data, work orders and texts from a supervisor can show what the driver was doing.

Why is a car owner's liability capped?

Vehicle Code 17150 makes every owner liable for injury caused by negligent driving by anyone using the car with permission, "in the business of the owner or otherwise." Section 17151(a) then limits that liability, when it does not arise from an employment or agency relationship, to $15,000 for one person's injury or death, $30,000 for more than one person, and $5,000 for property damage in any one accident.

That cap does not limit a claim based on the owner's own negligence. If an owner let someone drive who they knew, or should have known, was incompetent or unfit, such as an unlicensed driver or one known to drive drunk, a negligent entrustment claim requires proof that the owner owned or had permission to possess the car, knew or should have known of the unfitness, permitted the driving, and that the unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the harm (CACI 724).

What changes the answer?

The driver was a rideshare driver. Separate insurance rules apply by app phase; see who pays when a rideshare car crashes.

The driver was a public employee in a government vehicle. A public entity is liable for injury caused by its employee's negligent driving in the scope of employment (Vehicle Code 17001), but a written claim is due within six months (Government Code 911.2); see crashes with a county vehicle or public bus.

You were also hurt on the job. If you and the driver work for the same employer, workers' compensation rules apply to your claim against the employer; see a crash while working.

The driver had little or no insurance. An employer's or owner's coverage may help, and so may your own underinsured motorist coverage; see how that coverage works.

A vehicle defect contributed. The manufacturer may also share responsibility; see a defective car part as the cause of a crash.

What could this look like? An example

For example, imagine a plumbing company's service van that runs a stop sign in Cotati and hits a car, injuring the driver. The van's driver had just finished a repair call and was heading to the next job. The plumber's personal auto policy is small.

Because the van driver was traveling between job sites for the employer, he was within the scope of employment, and the company is responsible for his negligence without a statutory cap (Civil Code 2338), with its commercial policy responding. If instead the van had been lent to the plumber's 17-year-old nephew for a personal errand, the company's liability as owner would be capped at $15,000 for one injured person (Vehicle Code 17151), unless the company knew the nephew was unfit to drive. This example is made up to show how the rules fit together; it says nothing about any real case.

What mistakes do people make in identifying who is responsible?

• Claiming only against the driver's personal insurance when a company vehicle was involved.
• Not asking what the driver was doing at the time of the crash, or writing down what they said.
• Assuming the registered owner is the driver, or that the owner has no responsibility.
• Not preserving logs, GPS or phone records that show whether the trip was for work.
• Missing the six-month claim when the driver worked for a city, county or school district.

What should I do this week?

1. Get the crash report and note the driver, the registered owner and any company name.
2. Photograph the other vehicle, including any company name, logo or vehicle number.
3. Write down what the driver said about where they were going.
4. Send a written request to the company to keep its records for that day.
5. Open a claim with every insurer involved and keep the claim numbers.
6. Read our guide on who pays when several parties share the fault.

Frequently asked questions

Is an employer liable if the driver was an independent contractor?

The scope-of-employment rule applies to employees and agents (Civil Code 2338). Whether a driver is an employee or agent is disputed in many cases, and the jury instructions address that dispute (CACI 3704 and 3705).

Does the $15,000 owner cap apply to a company car?

Not when the liability arises from the employment or agency relationship (Vehicle Code 17151(a)). The cap applies to an owner's liability that rests only on giving permission.

Can I recover punitive damages from the employer?

Only if the employer had advance knowledge of the employee's unfitness and employed them with conscious disregard of others' safety, authorized or ratified the conduct, or was itself guilty of oppression, fraud or malice (Civil Code 3294(b)).

What if the driver took the car without permission?

Owner liability under Vehicle Code 17150 depends on express or implied permission. Without it, that route does not apply, though the driver remains responsible.

What if the at-fault driver was drunk and driving a company car?

The employer's responsibility still turns on the scope of employment, and punitive damages against the employer require the showing in Civil Code 3294(b). The rules for suing a bar or host are different; see whether a bar or winery can be sued after a drunk-driving crash.

Does it matter that the company car had the company's name on it?

The name on the vehicle helps identify the owner and suggests a business purpose, but scope of employment still depends on what the driver was actually doing at the time. Photograph it anyway, along with any vehicle number.

How long do I have to bring these claims?

Generally two years for an injury (Code of Civil Procedure 335.1), and six months for a claim against a public agency. See California personal injury deadlines.

If you were hit by someone driving for work or in someone else's car, contact Young Law Group today at (707) 343-0556 or through our contact page for a free consultation.

Sources

• Civil Code section 2338 (a principal's responsibility for an agent's negligence)
• Vehicle Code section 17150 (owner's liability for permitted drivers)
• Vehicle Code section 17151 (limits on owner's liability)
• Civil Code section 3294 (punitive damages, including against employers)
• Judicial Council of California: Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition: instructions 724, 3704, 3705, 3723, 3725, 3726 and 3727
• Vehicle Code section 17001 (public entity liability for an employee's driving)
• Government Code section 911.2 (six-month claim to a public entity)
• Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (two years for an injury)