If you were hit by a company van, delivery truck, or any vehicle driven by someone doing their job, you may have a claim not just against the driver, but against the employer as well. That distinction matters enormously because a business and its commercial insurance policy can absorb losses that an individual driver simply cannot.
This article explains how employer liability works in California, when it applies, what evidence you need to preserve right away, and why the coverage difference between a commercial policy and a personal one can change the outcome of your case.
If you've already been hurt and want to talk through your specific situation, call (818) 794-9947 for a free case review. No fee unless we win.
Quick-Answer Summary
- In California, an employer can be legally responsible for crashes caused by employees who were driving for work purposes at the time.
- This rule is called respondeat superior (Latin for "let the employer answer"), and it applies even when the employer did nothing personally wrong.
- Commercial policies often carry liability limits far above California's personal auto minimums, making more compensation available.
- Evidence like dashcam video, electronic logging device (ELD) data, and dispatch records is often overwritten within days, so acting fast matters.
- You generally have two years from the crash date to file a personal injury lawsuit under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §335.1.
- California's pure comparative fault rule means you can still recover even if you were partly responsible for the collision.
Why Crashes with Company Vehicles Differ from Ordinary Accidents
A collision between two private drivers is a two-party dispute. A collision involving a company vehicle is different in at least three important ways.
First, there is a potential third party with deeper pockets. An individual driver may have limited savings and a personal auto policy with California's minimum limits. A business almost always carries a commercial auto policy with higher limits and may own property, equipment, and other assets.
Second, the employer may have contributed to the crash before it happened. Employers choose who to hire, whether to run background checks, how to maintain vehicles, and what hours employees work. If the driver had a known history of reckless driving and the employer hired them anyway, that is a separate negligence theory called negligent entrustment or negligent hiring, which exists alongside the respondeat superior claim.
Third, a business generates records that a private driver does not. Dispatch logs, GPS tracking, ELD (electronic logging device) data required for commercial vehicles under federal rules, vehicle maintenance records, and employment files all become critical evidence. None of that exists in a two-car crash between neighbors.
Vicarious Liability: Holding the Employer Responsible for Its Driver
Under California's respondeat superior doctrine, an employer can be held liable for any harm its employee causes while driving within the scope of employment, even if the employer was not personally negligent.
This is not a loophole. It is a long-established principle of California tort law. The rationale is straightforward: a business that profits from an employee's labor also bears the risk that the employee's negligent conduct will injure someone during that work.
To hold an employer liable under respondeat superior, you generally need to show:
- The driver was an employee (not an independent contractor, more on that below).
- The driver was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the crash.
That second element, "scope of employment," is where most disputes arise.
What "Scope of Employment" Means
Scope of employment covers the kinds of acts the employer authorizes, expects, or should reasonably expect. A delivery driver making a delivery is clearly within scope. A sales representative driving to a client meeting is within scope. A service technician driving a company van between job sites is within scope.
It can also cover situations that are less obvious. Courts have found employees within scope when:
- They were driving between their home and a job site that changed daily (not a fixed office).
- They were running a work errand that happened to also benefit them personally.
- They were using a company vehicle the employer had authorized for both work and personal use.
The Independent Contractor Problem
Employers sometimes argue that the driver was an independent contractor, not an employee, and therefore respondeat superior does not apply. This argument has less force in California than in many other states.
California courts look at the totality of the working relationship, and the DIR (Department of Industrial Relations) applies the "ABC test" in the employment classification context. Courts assessing tort liability focus heavily on the employer's right to control the manner and means of the driver's work. If the employer controlled when the driver showed up, what route to take, what uniform to wear, or what vehicle to drive, a court may find an employment relationship regardless of what the contract says.
When the Driver Was "On the Job" Versus on a Personal Errand
The trickiest vicarious liability questions involve the line between work trips and personal trips. California courts have developed a body of law around this.
California's "coming and going rule" generally excludes commutes from employer liability, but exceptions apply when the employer pays for the commute, provides a company vehicle for personal use, or the employee was running a work errand en route.
The Coming and Going Rule
As a default, the commute from home to a fixed workplace and back is not within the scope of employment. If a sales rep rear-ends you on the freeway during their morning drive from home to the office, the employer may not be liable under this rule.
But courts recognize several well-developed exceptions.
The employer-provided vehicle exception. When an employer gives an employee a company vehicle and the employee is permitted to use it for personal purposes, courts frequently find that all use of that vehicle is within scope. The employer handed over the keys with knowledge that the vehicle would be used broadly.
The required-use exception. When an employee is required to have a vehicle available for work throughout the day and drives to and from work for that reason, courts may treat the entire trip as within scope.
The personal comfort doctrine. Short personal side trips that serve the employee's comfort while on a longer work trip (stopping for coffee, filling the gas tank, using a restroom) generally do not take the employee outside the scope of employment.
The dual-purpose trip. When a trip serves both a business purpose and a personal purpose simultaneously, California courts generally apply the "primary purpose" test. If the work purpose was the primary reason for the trip, the employer may be liable for the whole trip.
If you are unsure whether the driver was on the job at the time they hit you, that is a factual question worth exploring with an attorney. The answer often comes from the records the employer holds.
Why Commercial Insurance Policies Often Mean More Coverage
California requires every driver to carry minimum liability coverage. Under Veh. Code §16056, as updated by SB 1107 for policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2025, the personal auto minimums are $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident, and $15,000 for property damage.
Commercial auto policies commonly carry liability limits far above California's personal auto minimums, which means more coverage may be available to compensate an injured victim.
Those personal minimums are often far too low to fully compensate for a serious injury. A hospitalization, surgery, and several months of physical therapy can easily exceed $30,000 before lost wages enter the picture.
Commercial auto policies are a different category. Businesses purchasing commercial auto coverage routinely carry per-occurrence limits in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Large trucking fleets and companies with significant vehicle exposure often carry umbrella or excess liability policies on top of the primary commercial policy.
Beyond insurance, naming the employer as a defendant opens access to the employer's business assets, which a judgment can reach if the policy limits are exhausted. A driver operating a ten-year-old car with minimum coverage may be largely judgment-proof. A mid-sized delivery company is not.
Federal Minimum Requirements for Commercial Trucks
If the vehicle that hit you was a semi-truck or commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operating in interstate commerce, federal regulations set separate minimum liability requirements. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requires minimum insurance of $750,000 for general freight carriers, and up to $5,000,000 for carriers transporting certain hazardous materials. Those floors are far above state minimums and mean substantially more coverage is in play from the start.
Preserving Company Records, Logs, and Vehicle Data
This section is time-sensitive. Most injured people do not realize how quickly electronic evidence disappears.
You should send a litigation hold notice to the employer as soon as possible after a commercial vehicle crash, because electronic logging device data, dashcam footage, and dispatch records are routinely overwritten within days.
Here is what exists after a commercial vehicle crash and when it typically disappears:
| Evidence | Typical Retention Before Overwrite |
|, |, |
| Dashcam / in-cab video | 48-72 hours (loop overwrite) |
| ELD (electronic log) data | Varies by carrier; often 6 months, but can be shorter if not preserved |
| GPS / telematics data | Days to weeks depending on the system |
| Dispatch and communication records | Often archived longer, but access requires a legal hold |
| Driver qualification file | Retained during employment and 3 years after (FMCSA rule) |
| Vehicle maintenance records | Required for 1 year under FMCSA for CMVs |
An attorney can send a formal litigation hold letter to the employer and its insurer demanding that all potentially relevant evidence be preserved. Destruction of evidence after receiving a hold letter is called spoliation and can support an adverse inference instruction at trial, meaning a judge can tell the jury to assume the destroyed evidence would have hurt the employer's case.
If you are represented quickly, these letters go out within days of the crash. If you wait months to hire an attorney, some of this evidence may already be gone.
How Pursuing the Employer Can Protect Your Full Recovery
Naming the employer as a defendant is not just about more money in a general sense. It changes the practical dynamics of the claim in several specific ways.
Multiple insurance policies may apply. The driver may have a personal auto policy. The employer has a commercial auto policy. The employer may also have a general commercial liability policy or an umbrella policy. An attorney who identifies all potentially applicable policies maximizes the coverage pool from day one.
Negotiation leverage shifts. A large insurer defending a commercial account has more at stake than a personal lines carrier defending a minimum-limits driver. Commercial insurers generally have more authority to resolve claims, and the threat of litigation against an employer-client carries more weight.
Employer negligence adds independent claims. As noted above, if the employer was negligent in hiring, training, supervising, or entrusting the vehicle to this driver, those are independent theories of liability that do not depend on scope of employment at all. A driver who crashed while technically "off the clock" may still trigger employer liability under negligent entrustment if the employer gave the keys to someone with a history of DUIs or a suspended license.
California's comparative fault rule does not bar recovery for partial fault. [SPEAKABLE] California's pure comparative fault rule, established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), lets an injured person recover even if they were partly at fault, though their award is reduced by their percentage of fault. Even if the employer's insurer argues you share some blame for the collision, that does not end your case. It reduces your damages proportionally.
What to Do After a Commercial Vehicle Crash in California
The steps you take in the days immediately after a crash directly affect the strength of your claim.
- Call 911 and get a police report. The responding officer's report establishes the basic facts and may include a preliminary fault assessment.
- Document the scene. Photograph the vehicles, positions, damage, road conditions, skid marks, traffic controls, and any company markings on the vehicle (company name, DOT number, phone number on the door).
- Identify the driver and employer. Get the driver's name, license, and insurance. Note any company name on the vehicle. Look for USDOT numbers on commercial trucks, these are searchable in the FMCSA database.
- Gather witness information. Bystanders who saw the crash can provide independent accounts. Get names and phone numbers before they leave.
- Seek medical care immediately. A gap between the crash and your first medical visit gives the insurance company a reason to argue your injuries were not caused by the collision.
- Do not give a recorded statement to the employer's insurer. Adjusters are trained to obtain statements that can be used to minimize your claim. You are not required to give one before you have legal representation.
- Contact an attorney before the evidence disappears. The litigation hold letter needs to go out fast.
The Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations for a personal injury claim against a company or employer in California is generally two years from the date of the accident under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §335.1.
Two years sounds like a long time. It is not, because building the case against an employer requires early investigation. Waiting until the deadline approaches means the best evidence may already be gone.
There are narrow exceptions. If a government entity owned the vehicle (a city bus, a county truck, a public utility vehicle), the claim is governed by the Government Claims Act, and you must file an administrative claim with the agency within six months of the incident before filing suit. Missing that six-month deadline can permanently bar your claim.
FAQ
Can I sue the employer if a company vehicle hits me?
Yes, in most cases. Under California's respondeat superior doctrine, an employer is legally responsible for harm caused by an employee who was driving within the scope of their employment. You can name both the driver and the employer as defendants. The employer's commercial insurance policy and business assets are then available to satisfy your claim.
What is vicarious liability in California?
Vicarious liability means one party is held legally responsible for the wrongful acts of another because of their relationship. In the employer-employee context, this is called respondeat superior. California courts apply this doctrine broadly: an employer who benefits from an employee's work also bears the risk that the employee will injure someone during that work. The employer does not need to have done anything wrong independently.
Who pays when a work vehicle causes an accident?
Typically the employer's commercial auto insurance carrier pays first, up to the policy limits. If the driver also carried personal auto coverage, that policy may provide additional coverage. If the damages exceed all available insurance, a court judgment can be enforced against the employer's business assets.
Are commercial policies bigger than personal ones?
Generally yes, by a wide margin. California's personal auto minimum is $30,000 per person and $60,000 per accident under Veh. Code §16056. Businesses routinely purchase commercial policies with per-occurrence limits in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Large trucking companies operating in interstate commerce must carry at least $750,000 under FMCSA regulations, and many carry umbrella policies on top of that.
What if the driver was an independent contractor, not an employee?
The employer will almost certainly raise this argument. California courts look past the label on the contract and examine the actual working relationship, focusing on the employer's right to control the manner and means of the driver's work. If the company told the driver when to show up, what vehicle to drive, and what route to take, a court may find an employment relationship regardless of the "contractor" label. Negligent entrustment, a separate theory, can also apply even when no employment relationship exists, if the company let someone use the vehicle while knowing the driver was unfit.
What if I was partly at fault for the crash?
You can still recover. California follows pure comparative fault, established by the California Supreme Court in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, but they are not eliminated. For example, if a jury finds you 20% at fault and awards $200,000, you recover $160,000.
What records should I try to preserve after a commercial vehicle crash?
The most time-sensitive records are dashcam footage, ELD data, GPS and telematics data, dispatch records, and driver communication logs. An attorney can send a litigation hold letter to the employer and its insurer immediately, demanding preservation of all relevant documents. You should also photograph the company markings on the vehicle and note any USDOT number on the door.
Does the two-year deadline apply if a government vehicle hit me?
No. If the vehicle was owned or operated by a government entity (a city, county, or state agency), the Government Claims Act requires you to file an administrative claim with the responsible agency within six months of the incident before filing a lawsuit. Missing this six-month window can permanently end your ability to recover.
What is negligent entrustment and how does it differ from respondeat superior?
Respondeat superior holds the employer liable because the driver was acting in the scope of employment. Negligent entrustment holds the employer liable because it gave keys to a driver it knew, or should have known, was unfit to drive safely. Negligent entrustment can apply even when the driver was technically off the clock. If the employer knew about prior DUI convictions, a suspended license, or a pattern of reckless driving and let the driver use the vehicle anyway, that is an independent basis for employer liability.
We Fight for Injured Victims of Commercial Vehicle Crashes
If a company vehicle or its driver injured you, the employer is often the party with the resources to fully compensate you. Accessing those resources requires moving quickly, identifying all available insurance, and preserving evidence before it disappears.
We've recovered over $150,000,000 for injured workers and accident victims in Southern California since 2014. Every case we take is handled as if it will go to trial, because that preparation is exactly what moves insurance carriers to settle for fair amounts.
Call (818) 794-9947) for a free consultation. No fee unless we win.
Reviewed by Minas Nordanyan, CA Bar #296806. Last updated July 2026.