In Hinojosa v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, the employer required its employees to transport themselves to one of seven or eight "non-contiguous" ranches. ( Id. at p. 152.) During the workday, the employees often were reassigned to other ranches. (Ibid.) "The trier of fact specifically found that 'the nature of the work made it necessary for an employee to have transportation during the work day as the employer shifted him from one ranch to another.' Hinojosa did not know from day to day on which of his employer's fields he would be working or the duration of the work on that field; he needed a motor vehicle not only to get to the fields but for the variable inter-ranch transit necessary to perform the day's work. Thus the working conditions imposed by the employer required that Hinojosa provide himself with some form of automotive transportation." (Ibid.) Because the nature of the job required the employee to have a car, the court concluded that the going-and-coming rule did not apply. ( Id. at pp. 156, 160, 162.)