Key California Statutes for Personal Injury.

Overview

The statutes that govern California personal injury cases, organized by code and annotated with practical notes on how each one affects your case.

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)

The Code of Civil Procedure governs the procedural rules for California civil litigation, from filing deadlines to discovery to trial and post-judgment proceedings.

Statutes of Limitations

The statute of limitations is the single most critical deadline in any PI case. Missing it is malpractice.

CCP 335.1 -- General Personal Injury (2 Years)

: The default statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death actions. The clock begins running when the plaintiff suffers actual injury or discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) the injury and its cause. Two years from the date of injury or discovery.

: Why it matters: This is the most frequently applied SOL in PI practice. Calendar it immediately upon intake and set a reminder at least 90 days before expiration.

CCP 340.5 -- Medical Malpractice (1 Year / 3 Year Cap)

: Actions for professional negligence against a health care provider must be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, but in no event more than three years from the date of the injury. Exceptions for fraud, concealment, and foreign objects.

: Why it matters: The shorter one-year discovery rule and three-year outside limit create traps for the unwary. Tolling rules for minors and incapacitated persons apply differently under this section than the general SOL.

CCP 340 -- Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment (2 Years)

: Actions for assault, battery, and false imprisonment must be filed within two years. Relevant for intentional tort PI claims.

: Why it matters: Intentional tort claims in PI may carry separate deadlines and are not subject to MICRA limitations.

CCP 340.2 -- Exposure to Hazardous Substances (2 Years from Discovery)

: Actions based on exposure to hazardous materials or toxic substances must be filed within two years from the date the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that the injury was caused by the exposure.

: Why it matters: Toxic tort cases often have long latency periods; the discovery rule is critical.

CCP 340.4 -- Childhood Sexual Abuse

: Provides extended limitations periods for claims arising from childhood sexual abuse, allowing filing until the plaintiff's 40th birthday or within 5 years of discovery, whichever is later.

: Why it matters: Applies to PI claims arising from institutional abuse, including elder care and dependent adult facilities.

CCP 337.15 -- Latent Construction Defects (10 Year Repose)

: Actions for latent deficiencies in construction must be filed within 10 years of substantial completion. A statute of repose, not a statute of limitations -- it runs from completion regardless of when the defect is discovered.

: Why it matters: Applies to PI claims arising from building or construction failures. The 10-year outside limit is absolute.

CCP 352 -- Tolling for Minors and Incapacitated Persons

: The statute of limitations is tolled while the plaintiff is a minor (under 18) or lacks legal capacity. For minors, the SOL generally does not begin to run until the minor turns 18.

: Why it matters: Always calculate the SOL separately for minor plaintiffs. Note that CCP 340.5 (medical malpractice) has its own tolling rules for minors that differ from the general rule.

CCP 351 -- Tolling for Defendant's Absence from State

: The statute of limitations is tolled while the defendant is absent from California, to the extent the absence prevents service of process.

: Why it matters: Relevant when a defendant flees the state or is difficult to locate.

Filing and Pleading

CCP 422.10 -- Pleading Requirements

: Sets forth the basic requirements for complaints and other pleadings in civil actions.

: Why it matters: Ensures complaints are properly formatted and contain all required elements.

CCP 425.16 -- Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)

: Provides a special motion to strike claims arising from protected free speech or petition activity. The defendant must show the claims arise from protected activity; the plaintiff must then demonstrate a probability of prevailing.

: Why it matters: Occasionally raised by defendants in PI cases involving media, public complaints, or online reviews.

CCP 474 -- Doe Defendants

: Permits naming fictitious ("Doe") defendants when the plaintiff is ignorant of the true name of a defendant. Allows amendment to substitute the real name when discovered.

: Why it matters: Essential for preserving claims against unknown defendants at the time of filing. Must file within the SOL for Doe defendants and then amend when identity is discovered, subject to the relation-back doctrine.

CCP 581c -- Nonsuit

: Authorizes the court to grant a nonsuit against the plaintiff if the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence at trial.

: Why it matters: The standard for surviving a nonsuit motion is critical trial strategy -- plaintiff must present at least prima facie evidence on every element.

CCP 585 -- Default and Default Judgment

: Governs the entry of default and default judgment when a defendant fails to respond to the complaint.

: Why it matters: Frequently used when defendants (particularly uninsured defendants) fail to appear.

Discovery

CCP 2016.010 et seq. -- Civil Discovery Act

: The comprehensive statutory framework governing all forms of civil discovery in California, including interrogatories, document requests, admissions, depositions, inspections, and expert discovery.

: Why it matters: The Discovery Act is the procedural backbone of PI litigation. Familiarity with its provisions is essential for every team member.

CCP 2017.010 -- Scope of Discovery

: Discovery may be obtained regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

: Why it matters: Defines the broad scope of what is discoverable. Use this section to resist overly narrow objections.

CCP 2025.010 et seq. -- Depositions

: Governs the taking of depositions, including notice requirements (2025.220), conduct (2025.460), and the use of depositions at trial (2025.620).

: Why it matters: Depositions are the most powerful discovery tool. Key rules: 10 days notice for party depositions, 20 days for non-parties; 7-hour time limit per deponent; right to have observer present at defense IME depositions.

CCP 2025.230 -- PMK (Person Most Knowledgeable) Deposition

: Allows a party to notice the deposition of an organization by specifying the topics of examination. The organization must designate its most knowledgeable person for each topic.

: Why it matters: Critical for deposing corporate defendants, insurers, and property management companies on specific topics like maintenance practices, training, or claim handling.

CCP 2030.010 et seq. -- Interrogatories

: Governs written interrogatories, including form interrogatories and special interrogatories. Special interrogatories are limited to 35 without a declaration of necessity (2030.030).

: Why it matters: The 35-interrogatory limit is strictly enforced. Use form interrogatories for standard PI questions and reserve special interrogatories for case-specific issues.

CCP 2031.010 et seq. -- Requests for Production of Documents

: Governs demands to produce documents, electronically stored information (ESI), and tangible things.

: Why it matters: Document production is central to PI discovery. Request insurance policies, incident reports, maintenance records, surveillance footage, and ESI early.

CCP 2032.020 et seq. -- Physical and Mental Examinations

: Governs defense medical examinations (commonly called IMEs). Requires a court order or stipulation. The plaintiff's attorney may have an observer present (2032.510).

: Why it matters: Defense IME results often drive settlement valuation. The right to have an observer (including audio recording in some circumstances) is a critical protection.

CCP 2033.010 et seq. -- Requests for Admission

: Governs requests for admission. Failure to respond results in deemed admissions (2033.280). Admissions can be withdrawn only on motion showing mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.

: Why it matters: Deemed admissions are a powerful tool and a dangerous trap. Always calendar response deadlines. Strategic use of RFAs can narrow issues and establish key facts.

CCP 2034.210 et seq. -- Expert Witness Discovery

: Governs the exchange of expert witness information, including the demand for exchange (2034.210), the exchange itself (2034.260), and the right to depose opposing experts (2034.410).

: Why it matters: Expert witness deadlines are strictly enforced. Missing the exchange deadline can result in exclusion of expert testimony at trial.

Offers to Compromise and Cost-Shifting

CCP 998 -- Offer to Compromise

: Allows any party to make a statutory offer to compromise before trial. If the offeree rejects the 998 offer and fails to obtain a more favorable result at trial, the offeree must pay the offeror's costs and expert witness fees incurred after the date of the offer.

: Why it matters: CCP 998 is one of the most powerful settlement tools in PI litigation. A well-timed plaintiff's 998 offer can shift expert costs to the defendant. A defense 998 offer creates risk for the plaintiff. Always evaluate 998 strategy before trial. See Important Case Law for key 998 decisions.

CCP 1032-1034 -- Costs

: Governs the recovery of litigation costs by the prevailing party. CCP 1032 defines "prevailing party." CCP 1033.5 lists allowable and non-allowable costs. CCP 1034 addresses costs in certain contract actions.

: Why it matters: The prevailing plaintiff in a PI case is entitled to costs as a matter of right. Understanding recoverable costs ensures proper cost bills and objections.

Wrongful Death and Survival Actions

CCP 377.10-377.62 -- Survival and Wrongful Death Actions

: Comprehensive statutory scheme governing actions that survive the death of a party (377.20-377.30) and wrongful death claims (377.60-377.62).

: Why it matters: The 377 series is the foundation for all death cases. Key distinctions: survival actions recover the decedent's pre-death damages (including pain and suffering per 377.34); wrongful death actions recover the heirs' losses (financial support, loss of love and companionship).

CCP 377.20 -- Survival of Cause of Action

: A cause of action for injury to the person survives the death of the person entitled to bring the action.

: Why it matters: Ensures that a defendant cannot escape liability by the plaintiff's death.

CCP 377.30 -- Who May Bring Survival Action

: The decedent's personal representative or successor in interest may bring the survival action.

: Why it matters: Establishes standing for survival claims. Must identify and establish the proper plaintiff.

CCP 377.34 -- Damages in Survival Action

: The decedent's damages recoverable in a survival action include the decedent's pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement (as amended in 2022 by AB 2770).

: Why it matters: The 2022 amendment was a significant change, allowing recovery of the decedent's pain and suffering in survival actions for the first time. This can substantially increase the value of death cases.

CCP 377.60 -- Wrongful Death Standing

: Lists the persons entitled to bring a wrongful death action: the decedent's surviving spouse or domestic partner, children, and (if none) other persons entitled to the decedent's property by intestate succession.

: Why it matters: Standing must be carefully established. All potential heirs should be identified and either joined as plaintiffs or their claims addressed.

Settlement and Judgment

CCP 664.6 -- Enforcement of Settlement Agreements

: Authorizes the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement if the parties stipulate to the court's jurisdiction.

: Why it matters: Provides a mechanism to enforce settlement agreements without filing a new breach of contract action.

CCP 877-877.6 -- Good Faith Settlement

: Governs good faith settlement determinations when multiple defendants are involved. A defendant who obtains a good faith settlement determination is discharged from claims for contribution or equitable indemnity by other defendants.

: Why it matters: Essential in multi-defendant cases. The Tech-Bilt factors govern the court's analysis. A good faith settlement bar protects settling defendants and reduces the non-settling defendants' liability by the settlement amount.

CCP 372 -- Guardian Ad Litem / Minor's Compromise

: Requires appointment of a guardian ad litem for minors and incompetent persons in litigation. Settlements involving minors require court approval.

: Why it matters: All minor settlements must be court-approved. Non-compliance can result in the settlement being set aside.

Civil Code (CC)

The Civil Code establishes substantive rights and obligations, including the foundation for negligence, damages, and liability in PI cases.

Negligence and Duty

CC 1714(a) -- General Duty of Care

: "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person."

: Why it matters: The foundational statute establishing California's default duty of care. Creates a presumption of duty that defendants must overcome using the Rowland factors. See Duty of Care.

CC 1714.01 -- Liability for Furnishing Alcohol (Social Host)

: Social hosts are generally not liable for injuries caused by intoxicated guests, except for furnishing alcohol to minors.

: Why it matters: Limits PI claims against social hosts. Different from commercial establishments (see Bus. & Prof. Code 25602.1).

Damages

CC 3281 -- Damages Defined

: "Every person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a compensation therefor in money, which is called damages."

: Why it matters: The broadest statutory authorization for damages recovery. Supports creative damages theories.

CC 3282 -- Detriment Defined

: Detriment includes the loss or harm suffered in person or property.

: Why it matters: Read together with CC 3281, establishes the comprehensive scope of recoverable damages.

CC 3283 -- Damages: Future Detriment

: Damages may be awarded for detriment reasonably certain to result in the future from the same wrongful act.

: Why it matters: Authorizes future damages (future medical costs, future lost earnings, future pain and suffering) when supported by evidence.

CC 3288 -- Prejudgment Interest on Unliquidated Claims

: The court may add prejudgment interest to damages in cases of breach of obligation not arising from contract.

: Why it matters: Prejudgment interest can significantly increase the recovery in PI cases. Available at the court's discretion for tort claims.

CC 3291 -- Prejudgment Interest After CCP 998 Rejection

: If the defendant rejects a plaintiff's CCP 998 offer and the plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at 10% per annum from the date of the 998 offer on the difference between the offer and judgment.

: Why it matters: Provides a powerful incentive for defendants to accept reasonable 998 offers. Can add substantial amounts to the judgment.

CC 3294 -- Punitive Damages

: Authorizes punitive damages for malice, oppression, or fraud. Requires clear and convincing evidence. Subsection (b) defines malice and oppression. Subsection (c) requires advance knowledge or ratification by a corporate officer, director, or managing agent for punitive damages against employers.

: Why it matters: The gateway statute for punitive damages in PI. The "managing agent" requirement under (c) is often the key battleground in corporate defendant cases. See Important Case Law.

CC 3333 -- Tort Damages: General Rule

: "For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages ... is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not."

: Why it matters: Establishes that tort damages need not have been foreseeable -- they need only be proximately caused. Broader recovery than contract damages.

CC 3333.1 -- Medical Malpractice: Collateral Source Exception

: In medical malpractice actions, evidence of collateral source payments (insurance, government benefits) is admissible to reduce damages. Exception to the general collateral source rule.

: Why it matters: Significantly different from the rule in non-malpractice PI cases. In standard PI, collateral source evidence is generally excluded.

CC 3333.2 -- MICRA: Non-Economic Damages Cap

: Caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions. Originally $250,000; increased by AB 35 (effective 2023) to $350,000 for non-death cases and $500,000 for death cases, with annual increases of $40,000/$50,000 respectively through 2033, after which the cap adjusts for inflation.

: Why it matters: The MICRA cap fundamentally affects case valuation in medical malpractice. Track the annual increases.

CC 3333.4 -- Uninsured/DUI Driver Damages Limitation

: Uninsured motorists and drivers convicted of DUI cannot recover non-economic damages.

: Why it matters: A complete bar on non-economic damages for these categories of plaintiffs. Confirm client's insurance status and driving history at intake.

Products Liability

CC 1714.45 -- Inherently Unsafe Products

: Limits strict liability for products that are inherently unsafe and known to be unsafe by the ordinary consumer (e.g., tobacco, alcohol). These products may be exempt from design defect claims if common consumer expectations are met.

: Why it matters: Narrows the scope of strict liability for certain categories of products.

Privacy

CC 1708.8 -- Physical Invasion of Privacy (Paparazzi)

: Creates liability for physical invasion of privacy, including use of surveillance devices.

: Why it matters: Relevant when opposing counsel or insurers engage in overly intrusive surveillance.

CC 1798 et seq. -- Information Practices Act (IPA)

: Governs the collection, maintenance, and disclosure of personal information by state agencies.

: Why it matters: Relevant when obtaining records from government agencies and understanding privacy limitations.

Apportionment

CC 1431-1431.2 -- Proposition 51 (Several Liability)

: CC 1431.2 provides that each defendant is severally liable for non-economic damages only in proportion to their percentage of fault. Joint and several liability is preserved for economic damages.

: Why it matters: The cornerstone of damages apportionment in multi-defendant PI cases. Plaintiff strategy must consider each defendant's ability to pay, particularly for non-economic damages. See Comparative Fault.

Liens

CC 3045.1-3045.6 -- Hospital Liens

: Authorizes hospitals to file liens against PI settlements and judgments for the reasonable and necessary charges of emergency and ongoing care. Lien attaches when the hospital provides written notice to the parties.

: Why it matters: Hospital liens must be identified and resolved before settlement disbursement. The lien amount may be negotiable.

Evidence Code (Evid. Code)

The Evidence Code governs the admissibility of evidence in California court proceedings.

Evid. Code 352 -- Exclusion of Unduly Prejudicial Evidence

: The court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice, confuse the issues, or mislead the jury.

: Why it matters: The most frequently invoked evidentiary provision. Use it to exclude inflammatory evidence (gruesome photos of other incidents, defendant's unrelated bad acts). Defend against it when your demonstrative evidence is powerful but graphic.

Evid. Code 452 -- Judicial Notice: Permissive

: Courts may take judicial notice of certain matters, including official acts, court records, and facts not reasonably subject to dispute.

: Why it matters: Use judicial notice to establish facts without formal proof (weather conditions, traffic laws, property ownership records).

Evid. Code 669 -- Negligence Per Se (Presumption from Statutory Violation)

: Creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence when a party violates a statute, the violation proximately caused the injury, and the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred.

: Why it matters: Negligence per se significantly strengthens liability claims when a statutory violation is involved (Vehicle Code violations, building code violations, OSHA violations). The jury is instructed that negligence is presumed.

Evid. Code 720 -- Expert Witness Qualifications

: A person may testify as an expert if they have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify them as an expert on the subject.

: Why it matters: Foundation for all expert testimony. Challenge defense experts' qualifications aggressively under this section.

Evid. Code 776 -- Examination of Adverse Party or Hostile Witness

: Permits leading questions of an adverse party called as a witness or a witness identified with an adverse party.

: Why it matters: Critical for direct examination of defendants and defense employees at trial.

Evid. Code 801-802 -- Expert Opinion Testimony

: Experts may give opinions based on matters perceived by or personally known to them, or made known to them at or before the hearing, that are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. Includes hypothetical questions.

: Why it matters: Governs the scope of expert testimony. Ensure your experts' opinions are based on admissible foundations.

Evid. Code 1115-1128 -- Mediation Confidentiality

: Establishes comprehensive confidentiality protections for mediation communications, including statements made during mediation, writings prepared for mediation, and the mediator's communications. These cannot be disclosed or admitted in any subsequent proceeding.

: Why it matters: Mediation confidentiality is nearly absolute in California. Do not reference mediation communications in subsequent proceedings. The protections survive even if mediation fails.

Evid. Code 1152 -- Offers to Compromise

: Evidence of settlement offers, negotiations, and related conduct is inadmissible to prove liability or damages. Does not apply to CCP 998 offers (which have separate admissibility rules).

: Why it matters: Protects settlement discussions from being used as evidence. Critical for candid negotiations.

Evid. Code 1157 -- Medical Peer Review Privilege

: Records and proceedings of organized medical staff committees are not subject to discovery. Protects hospital peer review and quality assurance processes.

: Why it matters: A significant barrier in medical malpractice cases. Cannot discover peer review records even if they contain evidence of the defendant physician's prior errors.

Evid. Code 1200-1205 -- Hearsay Rule and Exceptions

: Establishes the general rule excluding hearsay (out-of-court statements offered for truth) and outlines exceptions including party admissions (1220), prior inconsistent statements (1235), business records (1271), and official records (1280).

: Why it matters: Hearsay issues permeate PI trials. Medical records are typically admitted under the business records exception. Defendant's statements to investigators are admissible as party admissions.

Evid. Code 1271 -- Business Records Exception

: Hearsay is admissible if it is a writing made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act described, and the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation.

: Why it matters: The primary basis for admitting medical records, billing records, employment records, and business correspondence at trial.

Vehicle Code (Veh. Code)

The Vehicle Code governs motor vehicle operation and is the source of per se negligence claims in auto accident cases.

Veh. Code 17150-17159.5 -- Owner Liability

: The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for death or injury resulting from the negligent or wrongful operation of the vehicle by any person using it with the owner's permission (express or implied). Liability capped at $15,000/$30,000/$5,000 unless the owner was negligent in entrusting the vehicle.

: Why it matters: Establishes owner liability separate from driver liability. The low statutory cap means that negligent entrustment theory (which has no cap) is often pursued in addition.

Veh. Code 20001-20003 -- Hit and Run

: Requires a driver involved in a collision resulting in injury (20001) or property damage (20002) to stop, identify themselves, and render aid. Violation is a criminal offense.

: Why it matters: Criminal hit-and-run violations establish negligence per se and trigger UM coverage.

Veh. Code 21453 -- Red Light Violations

: Requires vehicles to stop at red signals. Violation is a strong basis for negligence per se in intersection collision cases.

: Why it matters: Red light violations are clear statutory breaches establishing a presumption of negligence under Evid. Code 669.

Veh. Code 22107 -- Unsafe Lane Change

: Prohibits lane changes unless the driver first ascertains that the movement can be made with reasonable safety.

: Why it matters: Common basis for negligence per se claims in sideswipe and lane-change collision cases.

Veh. Code 22350 -- Basic Speed Law

: No person shall drive at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for conditions. Separate from posted speed limits.

: Why it matters: The basic speed law creates liability even when a driver is within the posted limit if conditions (weather, traffic, road) warrant a slower speed.

Veh. Code 23152-23153 -- DUI

: Prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol (23152(a)-(b)) or drugs (23152(f)). Section 23153 applies when DUI driving causes bodily injury. Violation is both a crime and strong evidence of negligence per se.

: Why it matters: DUI cases provide strong liability and may support punitive damages (CC 3294) due to the conscious disregard for safety.

Veh. Code 27315 -- Seatbelt Law

: Requires occupants to wear seatbelts. Subdivision (j) provides that the failure to wear a seatbelt is not admissible as evidence of negligence or contributory negligence but may be admissible to mitigate damages.

: Why it matters: The defense may use seatbelt non-use to reduce damages (but not to establish comparative fault). File a motion in limine to limit this evidence.

Veh. Code 21801-21804 -- Right-of-Way: Turning and Intersections

: Establishes right-of-way rules for left turns (21801), right turns on red (21453(b)), and uncontrolled intersections (21800).

: Why it matters: Left-turn and intersection cases frequently turn on right-of-way statutes.

Government Code (Gov. Code)

The Government Code establishes the rules for suing government entities and their employees, as well as employment-related protections.

Government Claims Act (Tort Claims Act)

Gov. Code 810-996.6 -- Government Tort Claims Act (Overview)

: The comprehensive statutory scheme governing the liability of public entities and public employees. The fundamental rule: a public entity is not liable for injury unless a statute imposes liability (Gov. Code 815).

: Why it matters: Unlike private defendants, government entities are immune by default. You must identify a specific statute creating liability.

Gov. Code 815 -- Governmental Immunity: General Rule

: A public entity is not liable for an injury except as provided by statute. Eliminates common law tort liability for government entities.

: Why it matters: The starting point for all government liability analysis. Without a specific statute imposing liability, the claim fails.

Gov. Code 815.2 -- Vicarious Liability of Public Entity

: A public entity is vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employees within the scope of employment, to the same extent the employee is liable.

: Why it matters: The most common basis for government entity liability in PI. If the employee is liable under common law negligence, the entity is vicariously liable under this section.

Gov. Code 835 -- Dangerous Condition of Public Property

: A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred, and the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition.

: Why it matters: The primary basis for premises-type PI claims against government entities (potholes, broken sidewalks, dangerous road designs, defective signals).

Gov. Code 911.2 -- Government Claim Filing Deadline (6 Months)

: Claims for personal injury against a government entity must be presented to the entity within six months of the date of accrual of the cause of action.

: Why it matters: The most critical deadline in government cases. Missing the six-month deadline is presumptively fatal. Late claim relief is available (Gov. Code 911.4, 946.6) but not guaranteed.

Gov. Code 912.4 -- Time for Response to Government Claim

: The government entity has 45 days to act on a claim. If not acted upon within 45 days, the claim is deemed rejected.

: Why it matters: After rejection (actual or deemed), the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit (Gov. Code 945.6).

Gov. Code 945.6 -- Statute of Limitations After Claim Rejection

: A lawsuit against a government entity must be filed within six months after written notice of rejection, or two years from accrual if the claim is deemed rejected.

: Why it matters: Creates a separate (and often shorter) SOL for government claims.

Employment and Civil Rights

Gov. Code 12900 et seq. -- Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

: Prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in employment based on protected characteristics (race, sex, disability, age, etc.). Provides administrative and judicial remedies.

: Why it matters: Relevant when PI claims intersect with employment discrimination (e.g., a workplace injury combined with disability discrimination or failure to accommodate).

Insurance Code (Ins. Code)

The Insurance Code governs insurance practices and is central to PI claims that depend on insurance coverage.

Ins. Code 11580 -- Minimum Auto Liability Coverage

: Establishes minimum liability insurance requirements for California motor vehicles: $15,000 for injury/death of one person, $30,000 for injury/death of more than one person, $5,000 for property damage (15/30/5).

: Why it matters: California's minimum limits are very low. Assess whether UM/UIM coverage is needed early in every auto case.

Ins. Code 11580.2 -- Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage (UM/UIM)

: Requires insurers to offer UM and UIM coverage. UM coverage protects the insured when the at-fault driver is uninsured. UIM coverage applies when the at-fault driver's policy limits are insufficient to cover the insured's damages. Disputes resolved by arbitration.

: Why it matters: UM/UIM coverage is often the primary or only source of recovery in auto cases. Know the client's policy limits. Arbitration procedures differ from litigation. See Glossary -- UM/UIM.

Ins. Code 790.03 -- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices

: Prohibits specified unfair practices by insurers, including misrepresenting policy provisions, failing to acknowledge or act promptly on claims, denying claims without reasonable investigation, and offering substantially less than amounts warranted.

: Why it matters: The statutory basis for insurance bad faith claims. Violations create liability for both the insured's policy benefits and consequential tort damages.

Ins. Code 11580.1 -- Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury Minimum

: Requires that all auto liability policies include UM bodily injury coverage at least equal to the state minimum limits unless the insured affirmatively rejects it in writing.

: Why it matters: UM coverage cannot be waived without a signed written rejection. If no signed waiver exists, coverage applies by default.

Welfare and Institutions Code (Welf. & Inst. Code)

Welf. & Inst. Code 15600 et seq. -- Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act

: Provides enhanced civil remedies for abuse or neglect of elders (65+) and dependent adults, including attorney fees, costs, and punitive damages even in wrongful death cases (15657). Requires "recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice" by a defendant who had a "substantial caretaking or custodial relationship" or had "care or custody" of the elder.

: Why it matters: Elder abuse claims carry significant advantages over standard negligence: (1) attorney fees are recoverable, (2) punitive damages are available even in death cases, (3) survival damages include pre-death pain and suffering, and (4) claims are not subject to MICRA caps when the defendant is not a health care provider acting within scope.

Welf. & Inst. Code 14124.70 et seq. -- MediCal Liens

: Authorizes MediCal to recover the cost of medical care from PI settlements and judgments. The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) has a statutory lien.

: Why it matters: MediCal liens must be identified and resolved before disbursement. Negotiation strategies include the 25/50 formula and individual reduction requests.

Business and Professions Code (Bus. & Prof. Code)

Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq. -- Unfair Competition Law (UCL)

: Prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices. Provides injunctive relief and restitution.

: Why it matters: Used against insurance companies engaging in unfair claims practices. Also used in products liability and pharmaceutical cases.

Bus. & Prof. Code 25602-25602.1 -- Furnishing Alcohol

: Section 25602 provides civil immunity for furnishing alcohol to adults. Section 25602.1 creates liability for furnishing alcohol to minors.

: Why it matters: Eliminates dram shop liability against bars and restaurants for serving intoxicated adults, but preserves liability for serving minors. Important for PI cases involving alcohol-related injuries.

Bus. & Prof. Code 6146 -- Attorney Fee Limitations (Medical Malpractice)

: Limits contingency fees in medical malpractice cases to a sliding scale: 40% of the first $50,000, 33.33% of the next $50,000, 25% of the next $500,000, and 15% of any amount exceeding $600,000. (Adjusted by AB 35 effective 2023.)

: Why it matters: Fee caps in medical malpractice cases affect case economics and must be factored into case evaluation.

Bus. & Prof. Code 6147 -- Contingency Fee Agreements

: Requires that contingency fee agreements be in writing and contain specified information. Non-compliance makes the agreement voidable by the client.

: Why it matters: Ensure all retainer agreements comply. Non-compliant agreements can result in loss of fees.

Bus. & Prof. Code 6152 -- Solicitation of Legal Business (Runner/Capper)

: Prohibits the use of runners, cappers, or agents to solicit PI clients. Criminal penalties apply.

: Why it matters: Strict prohibition on ambulance chasing. Ensure all referral arrangements comply with ethical rules.

Health and Safety Code (Health & Saf. Code)

Health & Saf. Code 115920-115929 -- Swimming Pool Safety Act

: Requires residential swimming pools to have at least two safety features from a specified list, including pool fencing, self-closing gates, pool covers, and alarms. Violations may establish negligence per se.

: Why it matters: Critical in drowning and near-drowning PI cases. Non-compliance with pool safety requirements creates strong liability.

Health & Saf. Code 17920.3 -- Substandard Buildings

: Defines conditions that make a building substandard, including inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, and nuisance conditions.

: Why it matters: Relevant in habitability and premises liability cases involving dangerous building conditions.

Labor Code (Lab. Code)

Lab. Code 2698 et seq. -- PAGA (Private Attorneys General Act)

: Authorizes aggrieved employees to bring civil actions on behalf of themselves and other employees to recover penalties for Labor Code violations.

: Why it matters: Intersection with PI occurs when workplace injuries result from Labor Code violations. PAGA claims can support negligence per se arguments.

Lab. Code 6300 et seq. -- Cal/OSHA (Occupational Safety)

: Establishes workplace safety standards enforced by Cal/OSHA. Violations can constitute negligence per se in workplace injury PI claims against third parties (not the employer, which is covered by workers' compensation).

: Why it matters: Cal/OSHA violations by third parties (contractors, property owners, equipment manufacturers) on a worksite create negligence per se liability in PI claims.

Lab. Code 3850-3864 -- Workers' Compensation Third-Party Claims

: Governs the relationship between workers' compensation and third-party PI claims, including the employer's lien rights and the allocation of recovery.

: Why it matters: When a workplace injury involves a liable third party, the worker may pursue both workers' comp and a PI claim. The workers' comp lien must be resolved from the PI recovery.

Related Pages

• Legal Glossary -- Definitions for statutory terms referenced on this page
• Important Case Law -- Judicial interpretations of these statutes
• Duty of Care -- Analysis of CC 1714 and the Rowland framework
• Comparative Fault -- Proposition 51 and fault apportionment
• Economic Damages -- Howell/Pebley framework and damages calculation
• Practice Checklists -- Step-by-step procedures referencing these statutes

Cross-References

• Legal Glossary
• Leading Cases
• Practice Checklists
• Trial Practice
• Evidence Rules
• Discovery

Common Questions

Sources & Legal Citations

1. California Civil Code § 1714(a). General duty of reasonable care.
2. California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Two-year statute of limitations for personal injury.
3. California Evidence Code § 352. Discretion to exclude unduly prejudicial evidence.
4. California Government Code § 911.2. Government claims filing deadline.
5. California Vehicle Code § 17001. Government liability for employee driving.
6. California Code of Civil Procedure § 998. Statutory offer to compromise.