Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury Claims in California

Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury Claims in California

Navigating a personal injury claim in California involves understanding a complex set of laws, deadlines, and legal principles. At the very heart of this process lies the Statute of Limitations, which is a strict legal deadline for filing a lawsuit.

In California, for most personal injury claims, this deadline is two years from the date of the injury.

However, this is not a universal rule, and there are many exceptions. For instance, if the claim is against a government entity, the deadline can be as short as six months. Additionally, if the injured person was a minor at the time of the incident, the statute of limitations may not begin to run until they turn 18.

The “discovery rule” can also extend the deadline in cases where the injury was not immediately apparent, starting the two-year clock from the time the injury was or should have been discovered.

Missing this critical deadline, no matter how strong your case, will almost certainly lead to its dismissal by the court. The official statute governing the general personal injury statute of limitations is found in California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.

For a broader look at the key legal concepts shaping injury cases this year, see our Core Principles of California Personal Injury Law in 2025 guide.

---

1. Comparative Fault in California: How Shared Blame Impacts Compensation

California operates under the legal doctrine of “pure comparative negligence,” which is a generous system for plaintiffs. Unlike states that follow “modified comparative negligence” where a plaintiff is barred from recovery if they are 50% or more at fault, California allows an injured person to recover damages even if they are largely to blame for the accident.

The court or jury will determine the percentage of fault for each party involved. The total compensation awarded is then reduced in direct proportion to the plaintiff’s percentage of blame.

For example, if a jury awards a plaintiff $200,000 for their injuries, but finds they were 25% at fault for the accident, their final award will be reduced to $150,000. Even if the plaintiff is found to be 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of their total damages.

This system ensures that all parties are held accountable for their share of negligence, while still allowing the injured party to receive some form of compensation. This framework is a cornerstone of California’s tort law and influences nearly every personal injury settlement negotiation and trial.

This concept was solidified in the landmark California Supreme Court case, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975).

The court’s decision to shift from the harsh rule of contributory negligence to a system of pure comparative negligence was a major reform that revolutionized personal injury law in the state, allowing for a more equitable distribution of liability.

---

2. Negligence Laws in California: What Injury Victims Must Prove

To successfully prove a personal injury claim based on negligence in California, a plaintiff must establish four key elements by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning it is more likely than not that the defendant was at fault. These four elements form the legal foundation of the claim:

• Duty of Care: The defendant must have had a legal obligation to act with a certain standard of care toward the plaintiff. This duty is generally what a “reasonable person” would do in a similar situation to avoid causing harm. This principle is codified in California Civil Code § 1714.
• Breach of Duty: The defendant must have failed to uphold that duty of care. This can be an action they took or failed to take. For instance, a driver who runs a red light or a property owner who fails to fix a known hazard on their property has breached their duty.
• Causation: This is a two-part element. The plaintiff must prove both actual cause (“but for” the defendant’s actions, the injury would not have occurred) and proximate cause (the injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions). Without a clear link between the defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injuries, the claim will fail.
• Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or losses as a result of the injury. This can include physical injuries, emotional distress, and financial losses. Without tangible damages, there is no basis for a personal injury lawsuit.

---

3. Punitive Damages in California: When Courts Award Extra Compensation

Punitive damages are a powerful but rarely awarded form of compensation. Unlike compensatory damages, which are intended to make the victim whole again, punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant for particularly malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct.

They also serve as a deterrent to prevent similar behavior from others in the future.

Under California Civil Code Section 3294, a plaintiff must prove with “clear and convincing evidence”—a higher standard than “preponderance of the evidence”—that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. This is a significant hurdle to overcome.

Examples of conduct that might warrant punitive damages include a drunk driver with a history of DUIs who causes a serious accident, a corporation that knowingly markets a dangerous and defective product, or a person who commits an intentional assault and battery.

The official text of the law defining punitive damages can be found in California Civil Code § 3294.

The amount of punitive damages is not capped by a specific dollar amount in California, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that they must be “reasonable and proportionate” to the compensatory damages and the defendant’s reprehensibility.

The court also considers the defendant’s financial condition when determining the amount, to ensure the penalty is meaningful.

---

4. The Role of Insurance Companies in California Injury Claims

Insurance companies are central to almost every personal injury claim in California. For the at-fault party, their insurance policy is the primary source of compensation.

However, it is critical for injured individuals to understand that an insurance company’s interests are not aligned with their own. As for-profit businesses, their goal is to minimize the amount they pay out on claims.

This can lead to a variety of tactics, such as making a lowball settlement offer early in the process before the full extent of the injuries and long-term costs are known, or using recorded statements and social media to find reasons to deny or reduce a claim.

An experienced personal injury attorney understands these tactics and acts as a crucial advocate for the injured party.

They can handle all communication with the insurance company, conduct a thorough investigation to establish liability and damages, and negotiate for a fair settlement that covers all current and future losses, including pain and suffering. If a fair offer is not made, they can prepare the case for litigation.

---

5. How California Juries Decide Personal Injury Cases

The vast majority of personal injury cases in California settle before they ever reach a courtroom. However, for those that do, a jury of citizens will hear the evidence and decide the outcome.

The process begins with “voir dire,” or jury selection, where attorneys question potential jurors to ensure a fair and impartial panel is chosen.

Once the jury is empaneled, the trial proceeds through a series of stages: opening statements, the presentation of evidence (witness testimony, expert opinions, medical records, and photos), cross-examination, and closing arguments.

The judge then provides the jury with “jury instructions,” a set of legal guidelines they must follow to reach their verdict.

These instructions explain the burden of proof, the definition of negligence and comparative fault, and how to calculate damages. The jury then deliberates to decide two key issues: liability (was the defendant negligent and did that negligence cause the injury?) and damages (what is the amount of compensation the plaintiff should receive?). Their verdict, in most civil cases, must be reached by at least nine of the twelve jurors.

---

6. Understanding Duty of Care in California Injury Cases

The legal concept of “duty of care” is the starting point for any negligence-based personal injury claim. It represents the obligation that one person has to another to act in a reasonable and prudent manner to avoid causing harm.

California Civil Code section 1714(a) codifies this general duty, stating that everyone is responsible for an injury caused by their “want of ordinary care or skill.”

While the basic standard is what a “reasonable person” would do, the specific duty of care can be more complex and depends on the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the incident. Examples of specific duties include:

• Motorists: The duty to operate a vehicle safely and obey all traffic laws to avoid accidents.
• Property Owners: The duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition to prevent injuries to visitors. This includes fixing known hazards or warning guests about them.
• Professionals: Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are held to a higher standard, known as the “standard of care” of their profession. A doctor, for instance, has a duty to provide care that meets the same level of skill and care as other doctors in a similar specialty and community.

A failure to meet this standard is considered a breach of duty.

---

7. Strict Liability Explained: When California Law Holds Defendants Automatically Responsible

Strict liability is a powerful legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to hold a defendant liable for their injuries without having to prove negligence.

In these cases, the focus is not on the defendant’s actions or state of mind, but on the outcome. If the defendant engaged in a certain activity or manufactured a certain product that caused harm, they are held liable regardless of their intent or care.

In California, strict liability applies most commonly to two areas:

• Product Liability: Manufacturers, distributors, and retailers can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product. The plaintiff only needs to prove that the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control and that the defect caused their injury. A defect can be in the product’s design, a manufacturing defect, or a failure to warn consumers of a known danger.
• Dog Bites: California has a specific statute that makes a dog owner strictly liable for injuries their dog causes by biting someone in a public place or on private property where the victim was lawfully present. There is no “one free bite” rule in California.

Strict liability also applies to other “abnormally dangerous” activities, such as blasting or the use of hazardous chemicals, though these cases are less common.

---

8. Recent Legal Reforms Impacting California Personal Injury Law in 2025

The California legal landscape is in constant motion, with new laws and court decisions shaping personal injury law. As of 2025, several key reforms have had a significant impact:

• Increased Auto Insurance Minimums: Senate Bill 1107, which took effect on January 1, 2025, has dramatically increased the minimum liability limits for auto insurance. This change means that accident victims have access to greater financial resources from at-fault drivers’ policies, leading to potentially higher settlements for serious injuries.
• Changes to Medical Malpractice Caps: The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) has been a significant point of contention for decades due to its strict cap on non-economic damages. However, recent reforms under Assembly Bill 35 have introduced a phased increase to the cap, which began in 2023. This change means that in 2025 and beyond, victims of medical malpractice can now recover a higher amount for pain and suffering than in previous years.
• Government Claims Act: While the standard six-month deadline for filing a claim against a government entity remains, ongoing legislative discussions and court rulings have provided clearer guidance on what constitutes a valid and timely claim, providing some relief and clarity to plaintiffs.

---

9. What Damages Can You Recover in a California Personal Injury Case?

When a person is injured due to someone else’s negligence, the law allows them to seek financial recovery for their losses, known as “damages.” These damages are broadly categorized as follows:

• Economic Damages: These are objective, quantifiable financial losses. They are easily calculated and include:
  • Medical Expenses: All costs related to the injury, from ambulance rides and emergency room visits to surgeries, rehabilitation, physical therapy, and future medical care.
  • Lost Wages: Income lost due to time missed from work, both in the past and future. This also includes lost earning capacity if the injury results in a permanent disability that affects a person’s ability to work.
  • Property Damage: The cost to repair or replace property damaged in the accident, most commonly a vehicle.
  • Other Out-of-Pocket Expenses: Any other financial costs incurred as a direct result of the injury, such as travel to and from medical appointments or the cost of household help.
• Non-Economic Damages: These are subjective, intangible losses that are often more challenging to quantify but can be substantial. They include:
  • Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical pain and discomfort caused by the injury.
  • Emotional Distress: Recovery for mental and emotional anguish, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  • Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Damages for the inability to participate in activities, hobbies, or social events that the person enjoyed before the injury.
  • Loss of Consortium: A claim made by a spouse for the loss of companionship, affection, and spousal relations due to the injury.

In certain cases, Punitive Damages may also be awarded on top of these, as a punishment for the defendant’s egregious conduct.

---

People Also Ask (PAA)

Q: What is the Statute of Limitations for personal injury claims in California?

A: In most cases, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim in California is two years from the date of the injury. However, there are important exceptions, such as claims against a government entity, which have a much shorter deadline of six months.

Q: How does California’s comparative fault system affect my compensation?

A: California operates under a “pure comparative negligence” system. This means that if you are found to be partially at fault for the accident, your total compensation will be reduced by your percentage of blame. For example, if you are awarded $100,000 but are found to be 25% at fault, you will receive $75,000.

Q: What are the key elements I need to prove in a negligence case?

A: To prove negligence in California, you must establish four key elements:

1. Duty of Care: The defendant had a legal obligation to act reasonably.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to meet that standard of care.
3. Causation: The defendant’s actions directly caused your injuries.
4. Damages: You suffered tangible harm or losses as a result.

Q: What are punitive damages, and when are they awarded?

A: Punitive damages are a form of compensation designed to punish the defendant for malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct. They are not intended to compensate the victim but to deter similar behavior in the future. They are rarely awarded and require a higher standard of proof than other damages.

Q: What role do insurance companies play in California personal injury claims?

A: Insurance companies are central to almost every personal injury claim. However, their primary goal is to minimize the amount they pay out. It is crucial to understand that their interests are not aligned with the injured party’s. An experienced attorney can negotiate with the insurance company to ensure you receive a fair settlement.