Case File
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Exxon was not liable for injuries caused by an employee who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving to work after relocating at the company’s expense. The court held that the employee’s commute remained subject to Louisiana’s coming-and-going rule and did not fall within any recognized exception.
Case
Lacy v. Ibarra, 431 So.3d 1176 (La. 2026)
What Happened?
Exxon transferred employee Ibarra to Baton Rouge and paid his relocation expenses, including certain mileage costs associated with the move. After relocating, Ibarra drove his personal vehicle to work and was involved in a collision with Vonetta Lacy.
Lacy sued Exxon, alleging the company was vicariously liable for Ibarra’s negligence. Exxon argued that Ibarra was merely commuting to work and was not acting within the course and scope of his employment when the accident occurred.
Rule of Law
Louisiana’s coming-and-going rule generally provides that an employee traveling to or from work is not acting within the course and scope of employment. Exceptions may apply when the employer provides transportation, compensates the employee for travel time or expenses, directs the travel, or sends the employee on a special mission.
What the Court Said
The Louisiana Supreme Court held that none of the recognized exceptions applied.
The court rejected the argument that Ibarra was on a special mission for Exxon. At the time of the accident, he was simply driving to work and had already completed his relocation. The fact that he had not yet secured permanent housing did not transform his daily commute into an employment-related mission.
The court also found that Exxon was not compensating Ibarra for his commute. Although the company paid relocation expenses and agreed to cover certain mileage costs, those payments related to the relocation itself, not to routine travel between home and work.
As the court explained, an employer’s decision to pay relocation expenses does not convert an otherwise ordinary commute into an activity within the course and scope of employment, particularly where the employer does not direct or control the travel.
Accordingly, the court held that Ibarra was outside the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and affirmed summary judgment in Exxon’s favor.
Takeaway
This decision reinforces that employer-funded relocation benefits, standing alone, do not create liability for an employee’s post-relocation commute. Employers that provide relocation packages should clearly distinguish relocation reimbursements from commuting expenses and expressly state that they exercise no control over an employee’s routine travel to and from work. Doing so may help avoid later arguments that a commuting employee was acting within the course and scope of employment.
