The California Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury
California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 gives injured plaintiffs two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. Miss that window and, with rare exceptions, the court will dismiss the case regardless of how strong it is. The clock starts on the day the harm occurs — not the day you retain an attorney, not the day you finish treatment.
A critical nuance applies when the injury is not immediately apparent. Under the discovery rule, codified in CCP §340, the two-year period may begin when the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury and its cause. Toxic exposure cases, latent product defects, and certain medical conditions regularly invoke this rule — but courts apply it narrowly, and it requires showing there was no reasonable means to discover the harm earlier.
For minors, the statute is tolled until they turn 18. A child injured at age 10 generally has until their 20th birthday to file. Medical malpractice claims involving minors under six are subject to different rules under CCP §340.5.
Critical: Government Claims Have a 6-Month Deadline. If the injury was caused by a California state agency, a city, a county, a school district, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Caltrans, or any other public entity, a written administrative claim must be filed within six months of the incident under Government Code §911.2. Failure to file the administrative claim before this deadline bars the lawsuit entirely. The six-month period is separate from and shorter than the two-year civil statute of limitations. After the government denies or fails to respond to the claim within 45 days, the plaintiff then has six months from that rejection to file suit in court.
Missing the government claim deadline is one of the most preventable and irreversible mistakes in California personal injury practice. Attorneys in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Bay Area regularly see this issue arise in transit accident cases, public sidewalk falls, and incidents at public schools or parks. If a government entity had any role in your injury, consult an attorney immediately.
Official statute text is available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
California's Negligence Rule: Pure Comparative Fault
California follows the pure comparative fault doctrine, a rule the California Supreme Court adopted in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). Before that decision, California used the all-or-nothing contributory negligence standard: a plaintiff even 1% at fault could recover nothing. Li swept that rule away and replaced it with proportional apportionment.
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their own percentage of fault. A plaintiff who is 80% responsible for their own accident can still sue the other 20%-at-fault party and recover 20% of total damages. No state cap, no threshold, no bar. That is what makes California's system "pure" rather than "modified" comparative fault — the form used in many other states that cuts off recovery once a plaintiff's fault exceeds 50% or 51%.
Proposition 51 and Joint and Several Liability
Proposition 51 (1986), codified as California Civil Code §1431.2, introduced a split system for multi-defendant cases. Each defendant remains jointly and severally liable for economic damages — medical bills, lost wages, future care costs — meaning a plaintiff can collect the full amount from any single defendant, even one who was only 10% at fault. For non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium), each defendant pays only their proportional share. A defendant found 25% liable pays 25% of the non-economic award, period.
In practice, this matters most when one defendant is judgment-proof or uninsured. In a multi-vehicle accident on the 405, a solvent defendant with 30% fault cannot be forced to cover another defendant's 70% share of pain-and-suffering damages — but they can be compelled to cover the full economic damages bill if the other defendants cannot pay.
Damage Caps in California Personal Injury Cases
General Personal Injury: No Cap
For standard personal injury cases — car accidents, slip and falls, dog bites, product liability, premises liability — California imposes no statutory cap on non-economic damages. A jury in San Francisco or Los Angeles is free to award whatever it finds appropriate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Punitive damages are also uncapped by statute, though subject to constitutional due process review under the ratios established in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996) and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003), which generally disfavor punitive awards exceeding a single-digit multiplier of compensatory damages.
Medical Malpractice: MICRA Cap (Updated 2026)
Medical malpractice claims operate under a distinct set of rules. The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), Cal. Civil Code §3333.2, caps non-economic damages in medical negligence cases. For decades, that cap sat at $250,000 — a figure set in 1975 and never adjusted for inflation despite nearly 50 years of cost increases.
In 2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 35, which fundamentally revised the MICRA cap structure and put it on an annual escalation schedule effective January 1, 2023. The current caps as of January 1, 2026, are:
| Case Type | 2026 MICRA Cap | Maximum (reached 2033) |
|---|---|---|
| Non-fatal malpractice injury | $470,000 | $750,000 |
| Malpractice wrongful death | $650,000 | $1,000,000 |
The non-fatal cap increases by $40,000 on January 1 of each year; the wrongful death cap increases by $50,000 per year. Both reach their statutory ceilings in 2033, after which annual inflation adjustments apply beginning in 2034. Economic damages in medical malpractice — hospital bills, rehabilitation costs, lost wages — are not capped under MICRA and can be awarded in full.
MICRA applies only to medical malpractice. A slip and fall in a hospital corridor, a defective medical device claim under product liability, or a negligent security claim at a clinic may not be subject to these caps. The classification of the claim — not the setting — typically determines which rules apply.
Auto Insurance and Personal Injury Claims in California
California is a tort (at-fault) state. An injured driver pursues compensation from the at-fault driver's liability insurance, not their own insurer first. This contrasts with the no-fault PIP system used in states like Florida and Michigan, where drivers turn to their own coverage regardless of who caused the crash.
Minimum Liability Requirements (Updated January 2025)
Senate Bill 1107 raised California's minimum liability coverage requirements effective January 1, 2025 — the first increase since 1967. The current minimums are:
| Coverage Type | Minimum (as of Jan. 1, 2025) |
|---|---|
| Bodily injury — one person | $30,000 |
| Bodily injury — per accident | $60,000 |
| Property damage — per accident | $15,000 |
The prior limits were $15,000/$30,000/$5,000 — numbers that bore almost no relationship to actual medical costs after five-plus decades of inflation. Policies issued or renewed before January 1, 2025, may still carry the old limits until renewal. A further increase to 50/100/25 is scheduled for 2035.
No Mandatory PIP, But UM/UIM Is Required to Be Offered
California does not require personal injury protection (PIP) coverage. Insurers are required to offer uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage, but drivers can waive it in writing. Given that a significant percentage of California drivers remain uninsured despite the legal requirement, declining UM/UIM coverage leaves injured claimants with limited recourse after an accident caused by an uninsured driver.
Proposition 213 and Uninsured Drivers
Proposition 213 (1996), codified at California Civil Code §3333.4, restricts uninsured drivers from recovering non-economic damages in personal injury lawsuits — even when the accident was entirely the other driver's fault. An uninsured driver hit by a drunk driver at a Sacramento intersection can still recover medical bills and lost wages, but cannot recover for pain and suffering. This is a significant consequence that provides a strong financial incentive to carry at least minimum coverage.
Estimate Your California Settlement Value
Use our free calculator to see what your California personal injury case may be worth.
Use the Free Calculator →