Cal. Civ. Code § 1714; Cal. Veh. Code; CACI 700 series
Car accident claims in California: two years, comparative fault, and the Vehicle Code
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
A car accident claim in California is a negligence claim. The elements are the same, the deadline is the same, and the fault rules are the same.
What makes it worth understanding separately is where the standard of care comes from. In an ordinary negligence case a jury decides what a reasonable person would have done. In a vehicle case, the Vehicle Code has usually already answered that — and a driver who violated it starts the case presumed negligent.
What the claim is
Another driver hurt you or damaged your property in a collision.
The claim also covers the surrounding cases: a passenger suing their own driver, a pedestrian or cyclist struck by a vehicle, a vehicle owner who negligently entrusted the car to someone unfit to drive it, and an employer whose employee crashed while working.
Where the right comes from
Common law negligence, resting on Civil Code § 1714(a) — everyone is responsible for injury occasioned by their want of ordinary care in the management of their property or person.
The Vehicle Code does not create the claim. It supplies the rules of the road that define what reasonable care required in the moment.
What a plaintiff has to prove
The ordinary negligence elements: duty, breach, causation, damages, with causation on the substantial factor standard.
But the breach element usually runs through negligence per se, and that changes the shape of the case.
Under Evidence Code § 669, a driver who violated a statute is presumed negligent where the violation caused the injury, the injury was of the kind the statute was designed to prevent, and the plaintiff was in the class the statute was designed to protect. The CACI 700-series instructions build this out for vehicle cases.
The recurring statutory standards: the basic speed law, right-of-way rules, following distance, signalling, and the provisions governing turns and lane changes.
Negligence per se is a presumption, not a claim. You plead negligence and invoke the presumption. Pleading "negligence per se" as its own cause of action draws a demurrer.
The presumption is rebuttable — a driver can show they did what a reasonably careful person would have done in the same situation, which is how emergencies and unavoidable circumstances are handled.
How long you have to file
Two years for personal injury, under CCP § 335.1.
Three years for damage to the vehicle, under CCP § 338 — which means a property-damage claim can survive after the injury claim has expired.
Wrongful death carries its own two-year period, running from the date of death rather than the date of the collision.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing, in an ordinary collision between private drivers.
Six months, if a public entity was involved — and this is the single most common way a viable car accident case is lost in California.
A collision with a city bus, a transit vehicle, a police car, a public works truck, or any government-owned vehicle triggers the Government Claims Act. You must present a written claim to the entity within six months of the collision before you may sue.
If you miss it: a written application for leave to present a late claim within one year, and if that is denied, a petition to the superior court within six months of the denial.
Character: a condition precedent the plaintiff must plead and prove. Government Code § 945.4 bars the action without timely presentation.
The trap is the gap between the two clocks. Someone hit by a municipal bus who spends eight months recovering before calling a lawyer is still comfortably inside the two-year statute of limitations — and may already have lost.
Note also that a dangerous condition of the roadway — a missing sign, a defective design, an unrepaired hazard — is a claim against the public entity that must be brought under the specific dangerous-condition statute, not as ordinary negligence.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The driver.
The vehicle's owner, on two distinct theories. California imposes statutory owner liability for permissive use, subject to a monetary cap set by the Vehicle Code — a limited but automatic exposure. And negligent entrustment is a separate, uncapped theory where the owner knew the driver was unfit.
The driver's employer, where the driver was acting within the scope of employment.
Public entities, subject to the claim presentation requirement above.
Common defenses
Comparative fault — California is pure comparative negligence, so a plaintiff 70% at fault still recovers 30%. There is no bar and no 50% cutoff.
Rebutting the negligence per se presumption, by showing the driver acted as a reasonably careful person would have in the circumstances.
Sudden emergency, and the plaintiff's own statutory violations feeding back into comparative fault.
Failure to mitigate — which is where seat belt evidence enters, as a comparative fault consideration rather than a bar.
The statute of limitations, and against a public entity, failure to present a timely claim.
What the claim pays
Economic damages — medical costs, lost earnings, property damage, loss of use.
Non-economic damages — pain, suffering, disfigurement — subject to Proposition 51, under which defendants are severally liable for non-economic damages in proportion to fault while remaining jointly liable for economic damages.
One limitation specific to vehicle cases. California restricts the recovery of non-economic damages by an uninsured driver injured in a collision, and by a driver injured while operating under the influence. An uninsured plaintiff can recover medical bills and lost wages but generally not pain and suffering — a rule that surprises people and that turns on the plaintiff's own insurance status rather than fault.
But it does not reach a claim against the vehicle's manufacturer. In Hodges v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 109, an uninsured driver was burned when his car's fuel tank ruptured in a rear-end collision. The Supreme Court held the restriction does not apply to a products liability action for a design defect, because that claim does not arise out of the operation or use of a motor vehicle in the sense the measure meant. An uninsured plaintiff injured by a defective vehicle recovers pain and suffering in full — which makes identifying a defect worth real money in exactly the cases where the plaintiff otherwise has none.
Punitive damages only on a Civil Code § 3294 showing of oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence. Ordinary careless driving never qualifies; driving under the influence sometimes does.
No fee-shifting. The American rule applies.
Jury trial: yes.
What people get wrong
"I have two years, so there's time." Not if a government vehicle was involved. Six months.
"The other driver got a ticket, so I win." The citation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, not automatic liability, and you still have to prove causation and damages.
"I was partly at fault, so I get nothing." California is pure comparative. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage.
"Negligence per se is my cause of action." It is an evidentiary presumption. Plead negligence.
"My insurance status has nothing to do with my claim." In California it can. An uninsured driver's recovery of non-economic damages is restricted by statute — though not against a manufacturer on a products liability claim.
"Property damage and injury share one deadline." They do not — two years for injury, three for the vehicle.
Where it came from
There is no separate California statute creating a car accident claim, and that is the point. The Legislature built the Vehicle Code as a regulatory scheme, and the courts let it supply the standard of care through the negligence per se presumption codified at Evidence Code § 669.
The modern shape of these cases comes from two changes to general tort law. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) replaced contributory negligence with pure comparative fault, which meant a partly-at-fault driver could recover for the first time. Proposition 51 in 1986 split economic from non-economic damages for apportionment purposes.
The restriction on uninsured motorists' non-economic damages came from a 1996 ballot measure, and it remains the most distinctive feature of California vehicle litigation — a rule about the plaintiff's insurance rather than the defendant's conduct.
Common questions
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in California?
Two years for personal injury, three years for damage to the vehicle. A wrongful death claim runs two years from the date of death.
What if I was hit by a city bus or a government vehicle?
You must present a written claim to the public entity within six months of the collision before suing. Missing that deadline bars the case even though the two-year limitations period is still running.
The other driver was cited. Does that mean they're liable?
It helps a great deal but does not end it. A statutory violation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence under Evidence Code § 669. You still prove causation and damages, and the driver can rebut the presumption.
Can I recover if I was partly at fault?
Yes. California uses pure comparative negligence, so your damages are reduced by your share of responsibility rather than barred.
Does it matter that I was uninsured?
It can. California restricts an uninsured driver's recovery of non-economic damages — pain and suffering — even where the other driver was entirely at fault. Economic damages remain recoverable.
The restriction has a significant exception: it does not apply to a products liability claim against the vehicle's manufacturer for a design defect. An uninsured driver hurt by a defective car can recover pain and suffering from the manufacturer in full.