When On-the-Job Travel Requirements Protect Your Commute: Hinojosa v. WCAB

How Mandated Transportation Duties Create Workers’ Compensation Coverage for Injured Employees

Facts and Procedural Posture

An employer’s transport requirement can be implied from the job itself; a written directive is not always necessary. In its October 18, 1972 decision, the California Supreme Court found that Hinojosa needed access to a car because his agricultural work moved among his employer’s seven or eight noncontiguous ranches. That finding, not car ownership alone, connected the commute to employment. Because the employer required workers to move rapidly between these dispersed agricultural locations as field conditions dictated, having private transportation available on-site throughout the day was an essential condition of employment. The employer did not provide a company vehicle or direct transportation between the fields.

To satisfy this work requirement, Hinojosa arranged to ride with a coworker who owned a vehicle, paying the coworker $3 per week toward the car’s operating costs to secure transportation during the workday and during the commute. After completing their duties for the day, Hinojosa was riding home in his coworker’s car when the vehicle was involved in an accident, resulting in injuries to Hinojosa.

The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board denied benefits, holding that the injury occurred during a routine commute home and was therefore barred by the going and coming rule. Hinojosa petitioned for review, bringing the matter before the California Supreme Court to evaluate whether the mandate to maintain transportation at the job site extended coverage to the daily commute.

Exact Holding

The California Supreme Court annulled the WCAB’s decision and held that Hinojosa’s injury was compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The Court ruled that, on these facts, the employer’s requirement that private transportation remain available for travel among various work locations conferred a direct operational benefit and brought the commute outside the going and coming rule. Hinojosa’s status as a paying passenger in a coworker’s car, rather than the vehicle owner, did not defeat coverage under this required-vehicle exception.

Record Checklist for Injured Workers and Representatives

When evaluating whether an off-site vehicle requirement extends coverage to an otherwise non-compensable commute, workers and their representatives should gather the following evidence:

• Workplace Location Records: Documentation showing that job duties required movement between multiple job sites, ranches, offices, or field locations within a single shift.
• Proof of Vehicle Requirement: Written employment contracts, witness statements, or manager testimony confirming that workers were required to have private transportation available during work hours.
• Carpool and Expense Records: Receipts, fuel contribution agreements, or witness testimony establishing the arrangement made to maintain required transit access.
• Incident Reports and Route Maps: Police reports and maps showing that the injury occurred along the direct physical route between the work site and home.

Limits of the Decision

The decision in Hinojosa depends heavily on its specific facts regarding mandatory vehicle availability for multi-site work. This decision does not establish that occasional or voluntary use of a personal vehicle transforms an ordinary commute into a covered activity. Where an employee chooses to drive a personal car purely for personal convenience without an employer directive or daily multi-site necessity, the standard going and coming rule continues to apply.

The required-vehicle issue should be proved through operational facts rather than labels. Relevant questions include whether the job could be performed without a vehicle present, how often workers moved during the shift, whether supervisors selected the next location, and what happened when a worker lacked transportation. A written vehicle policy is useful but not indispensable; consistent testimony and route records may show the actual condition of employment. The court emphasized that driver and passenger shared the burden and expense of supplying transport needed for the work. The payment described their arrangement; paying a coworker by itself did not turn an ordinary commute into work travel. The decisive setting was the implied job requirement for transport among ranches. Hinojosa, 8 Cal.3d at 160–162.