Personal Injury Claims FAQ

To succeed in a California personal injury claim based on negligence, you must prove four essential elements: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. First, you must establish that the defendant owed you a duty of care, meaning they had a legal obligation to act reasonably under the circumstances. In California, most people owe a general duty of care to others as established by common law and statutory provisions.

Second, you must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care—this is measured by what a reasonably prudent person would do under similar circumstances. Third, you must prove causation, which has two components: actual cause (but-for causation, meaning the injury wouldn't have occurred but for the defendant's conduct) and proximate cause (legal causation, meaning the harm was a foreseeable result of the conduct).

Finally, you must show that you suffered actual damages as a result of the defendant's breach. Without proving all four elements by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), your claim will not succeed.

Filing a personal injury claim in California involves several important steps that should be followed methodically. First, seek immediate medical attention to document your injuries and establish a clear connection between the incident and your harm. This creates a medical record that serves as crucial evidence. Second, gather evidence at the scene if possible, including photographs of the accident location, any hazards, vehicle damage, and your visible injuries. Collect contact information from any witnesses who observed what happened.

Third, notify the at-fault party's insurance company of your intent to file a claim, but be cautious about providing recorded statements without legal guidance. Fourth, calculate your damages comprehensively, including medical expenses (past and future), lost wages and earning capacity, property damage, and non-economic damages like pain and suffering. Fifth, send a formal demand letter outlining your claim, the facts supporting liability, and your requested compensation amount.

If negotiations with the insurance company fail to produce a fair settlement, you may need to file a lawsuit in the appropriate California court. For claims under $10,000, Small Claims Court is an option. For larger claims, you'll file in Superior Court. Remember, you generally have two years from the date of injury to file your lawsuit.

In California, strict liability and negligence represent two distinct legal theories for recovering damages in personal injury cases, each with fundamentally different requirements for proof. Under a negligence theory, you must prove that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, which requires establishing all four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. This means demonstrating what the defendant did wrong and how their carelessness led to your injuries.

In contrast, strict liability holds defendants responsible regardless of their level of care, fault, or intent. California applies strict liability in several important contexts. Product liability cases follow the doctrine established in the landmark case Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), holding manufacturers and sellers strictly liable for defective products. Dog bite cases fall under California Civil Code Section 3342, which makes dog owners strictly liable for bite injuries regardless of the dog's prior behavior or the owner's knowledge of dangerousness.

Strict liability also applies to abnormally dangerous activities (like using explosives or keeping wild animals) and certain statutory violations. The key practical advantage of strict liability is that you don't need to prove the defendant was careless—only that the product was defective, the dog bit you, or the activity was inherently dangerous. This significantly reduces your burden of proof.

Yes, California follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means you can recover compensation even if you were partially at fault for your injuries. Under this system, established in the landmark California Supreme Court case Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if you suffered $100,000 in damages but the jury or insurance adjuster finds you were 30% responsible for the accident, you would recover $70,000 (your damages minus your 30% share of fault).

California's pure comparative negligence rule is more favorable to injured plaintiffs than systems used in other states. Unlike modified comparative negligence states that bar recovery if you're 50% or more at fault, or contributory negligence states where any fault on your part eliminates recovery, California allows you to recover something regardless of your fault percentage. Even if you were 90% at fault, you could still recover 10% of your damages from the other party.

However, it's important to understand that defendants and their insurance companies will aggressively try to shift blame onto you to reduce their liability. California Civil Code Section 1431.2 further addresses joint liability situations, limiting non-economic damages to each defendant's proportionate share of fault. Understanding how comparative negligence applies to your case is crucial for evaluating settlement offers and trial strategy.

If the person who caused your injury in California doesn't have insurance, you still have several potential options for recovering compensation, though the process becomes more challenging. First, check your own insurance policies carefully. If the accident involved a vehicle, your uninsured motorist (UM) coverage can provide compensation for injuries caused by uninsured drivers. Medical payments coverage (MedPay) on your auto or homeowner's policy can help cover medical expenses regardless of fault.

Second, you can file a lawsuit directly against the at-fault party and attempt to collect from their personal assets. In California, you may be able to collect from the defendant's bank accounts, real property equity, valuable personal property, business interests, and wages. California allows wage garnishment of up to 25% of disposable earnings or the amount exceeding 40 times the state minimum wage, whichever is less, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 706.050.

Third, investigate whether third-party liability exists. If the accident occurred on someone else's property, the property owner might be liable. If a defective product contributed to the injury, the manufacturer could be sued. Fourth, you can place a judgment lien on the defendant's real property, which must be paid when they sell or refinance. Unfortunately, if the defendant has no assets or insurance, they may be considered "judgment-proof," making collection very difficult even with a court judgment in your favor.

In California, the statute of limitations for most personal injury claims is two years from the date of injury under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1. This deadline is strictly enforced by California courts, and failing to file your lawsuit within this window will typically bar your claim forever, regardless of how strong your case might be or how severe your injuries are. The defendant can raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, and the court will dismiss your case if it's filed too late.

However, several important exceptions may extend or shorten this standard deadline. The "discovery rule" delays the start of the statute until you discover or reasonably should have discovered your injury and its cause—this is particularly relevant in medical malpractice cases, toxic exposure situations, or injuries with delayed symptoms. If the injured party is a minor (under 18), the statute is generally tolled until they reach the age of majority. If you become mentally incapacitated, the statute may be tolled during the incapacity.

Claims against government entities in California require filing a government claim (formerly called a tort claim) within six months of the incident under the California Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 911.2), a much shorter deadline than private party claims. The statute may also be tolled if the defendant leaves California or conceals themselves to avoid service of process. Given these complexities and the severe consequences of missing any applicable deadline, consulting with a personal injury attorney promptly after an injury is strongly recommended.

California sees a wide variety of personal injury cases due to its large population, extensive highway system, and diverse range of activities and industries. Motor vehicle accidents are by far the most common type of personal injury case, encompassing car crashes, motorcycle accidents, truck collisions, pedestrian injuries, bicycle accidents, and increasingly, rideshare incidents involving companies like Uber and Lyft. With millions of vehicles on California roads daily, traffic accidents generate thousands of injury claims each year.

Slip and fall cases (premises liability) constitute another major category of personal injury claims. These cases arise when dangerous conditions on commercial or residential properties cause injuries, and they're governed by California Civil Code Sections 1714 and 846. Common scenarios include wet floors in grocery stores, uneven sidewalks, poorly lit parking lots, and hazardous stairs.

Medical malpractice claims arise when healthcare providers deviate from the accepted standard of care, causing patient harm. These cases face special procedural requirements and damage caps under MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act). Product liability cases involve injuries from defective or dangerous consumer products, from automobiles to household appliances to pharmaceuticals. Dog bite injuries are subject to California's strict liability statute (Civil Code Section 3342). Other common cases include assault and battery, construction accidents, nursing home abuse and neglect, and wrongful death claims brought by surviving family members under Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.60.

Generally, California's workers' compensation system provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, meaning you typically cannot sue your employer directly for negligence. This "exclusive remedy" doctrine is codified in California Labor Code Sections 3600-3602. In exchange for giving up the right to sue, injured workers receive benefits regardless of who was at fault for the accident, including full coverage of medical treatment, temporary and permanent disability payments, supplemental job displacement benefits, and death benefits for dependents.

However, there are important exceptions where you may pursue a civil lawsuit against your employer or others. If your employer intentionally caused your injury or engaged in conduct that was substantially certain to cause harm (beyond mere negligence), you may have grounds for a civil suit. The "dual capacity" doctrine may apply when your employer acts in a capacity other than as your employer, such as when your employer manufactures a product that injures you.

If a third party—someone other than your employer or co-worker—caused or contributed to your injury, you can file a personal injury claim against that third party while also receiving workers' compensation benefits. Common third-party defendants include manufacturers of defective equipment, negligent drivers, property owners, and subcontractors. Additionally, if your employer illegally fails to carry workers' compensation insurance as required by California Labor Code Section 3700, they lose the exclusive remedy protection and you can sue them directly in civil court. Toxic exposure cases and asbestos claims often involve both workers' compensation and third-party litigation.

Premises liability is the legal doctrine that holds property owners and occupiers responsible for injuries that occur on their property due to dangerous or defective conditions. In California, premises liability is primarily governed by California Civil Code Section 1714, which establishes that property owners must exercise ordinary care in the management of their property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. This duty extends to both owners and those in possession or control of property, including tenants, businesses, and property managers.

The landmark California Supreme Court decision in Rowland v. Christian (1968) fundamentally changed premises liability law by abolishing the traditional common law distinctions between invitees (business visitors), licensees (social guests), and trespassers. Instead, California now applies a general reasonable care standard to all visitors, though the visitor's status and reason for being on the property remain relevant factors in determining what constitutes reasonable care.

Property owners must regularly inspect their premises for dangerous conditions, promptly repair known hazards or provide adequate warnings to visitors, and maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. Common premises liability claims include slip and falls due to wet floors, spills, or uneven surfaces; inadequate security leading to foreseeable criminal attacks; swimming pool accidents; elevator and escalator malfunctions; falling merchandise in stores; and exposure to toxic substances. Key factors in these cases include whether the owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and whether they had a reasonable opportunity to correct it or warn visitors.

California's joint and several liability rules, significantly modified by the passage of Proposition 51 in 1986, determine how damages are allocated among multiple defendants found responsible for your injuries. Understanding these rules is crucial when your case involves more than one potential defendant, as they directly impact how much you can actually collect from each party.

Under California Civil Code Section 1431.2, economic damages (also called "special damages") remain subject to full joint and several liability. Economic damages include quantifiable losses like medical expenses, lost wages, future medical care costs, and property damage. This means you can collect the entire amount of your economic damages from any single defendant found liable, regardless of that defendant's percentage of fault. If one defendant is wealthy or well-insured while others are judgment-proof, you can pursue the solvent defendant for all economic damages.

However, non-economic damages (often called "general damages") are now subject to several liability only. Non-economic damages include pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and loss of consortium. Each defendant is responsible only for their proportionate share of non-economic damages based on their assigned percentage of fault. For example, if you have $100,000 in economic damages and $200,000 in non-economic damages, and Defendant A (who has insurance) is found 20% at fault while Defendant B (who has no assets) is 80% at fault, you can collect all $100,000 in economic damages from Defendant A, but only $40,000 (20%) of the non-economic damages from them. The remaining $160,000 in non-economic damages would be Defendant B's responsibility, which may be uncollectible.