BlogLine

When the commute becomes the job: $27.7M verdict reshapes employer liability

6/2/25

By: William A. Hadikusumo

On Thursday, May 22, a San Diego County jury awarded $27.7 million to Navy technician Michael LaPlante after a traffic collision resulted in the amputation of his leg. In LaPlante v. Martinez & Griffith Company, San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2023-00035872-CU-PA-CTL, Plaintiff LaPlante, riding his motorcycle, was struck by a pickup truck driven by Defendant Antelmo Martinez. At the time of the accident, Martinez was commuting approximately 103 miles to a job site for his employer, Griffith Co. (“Griffith”), where he worked in construction. 

One of the overarching issues at trial was whether Martinez’s employer, Griffith, could be held responsible for Martinez’s conduct while he was commuting to work in his personal vehicle. Plaintiff LaPlante argued that Griffith’s strict zero-tolerance policy requiring workers to report to job sites on time each day effectively made the commute part of Martinez’s job. These job sites were often very far, and the company relied on workers like Martinez to use their own vehicles to get to and from various remote locations without offering accommodations or hotel rooms. Plaintiff LaPlante further argued that Griffith directly benefited both from having him on the job site and from the use of the personal truck he drove to work.  

While Griffiths’ attorneys acknowledged the severity of LaPlante’s injuries, the defense emphasized that Martinez was not performing any job duties at the time of the collision and that no employer directive required him to use his personal vehicle. Griffith had no control over how Martinez got to work, and Martinez received no reimbursement for the commute.  

Following a lengthy trial and two days in deliberation, the Jury returned their verdict in favor of LaPlante. They apportioned 80% of the fault to Griffith and 20% to Martinez. Although the initial demand exceeded $98 million, the parties had entered into a high/low agreement during jury deliberations, setting a ceiling of $42 million and a floor of $37 million, with the final payout falling at the lower end.  

For employers and insurance defense attorneys, this case serves as a reminder to evaluate how company policies are applied in practice. A company policy requiring rigid attendance and reliance on employee-owned transportation may serve to shift the applicable scope of employment. While employers such as Griffith may not intend for commutes to fall within job duties, cases like LaPlante illustrate how quickly those lines can shift when juries are asked to evaluate an employer’s work expectations against extraordinary commute distances. 

For any questions or further clarification, please contact William A. Hadikusumo at william.hadikusumo@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and are not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.