On this page
Most of what decides a California car accident case is decided before anyone talks about the crash.
Three things run against you from the day of the collision, and none of them is about who was at fault.
A deadline that is two years — unless a city, county, or the state contributed, in which case it is six months.
Proposition 213, which can erase every dollar of your pain and suffering even when the other driver caused it.
And whether you were working. If you were, you have two claims, and the one nobody opened is usually the larger.
Proposition 213: the rule that surprises people most
Civil Code § 3333.4 bars non-economic damages — pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement — for three categories of injured person, no matter who caused the crash:
| Who is barred | Statute |
|---|---|
| A driver operating in violation of Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153 and convicted of it | § 3333.4(a)(1) |
| The owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident | § 3333.4(a)(2) |
| An operator who cannot establish financial responsibility | § 3333.4(a)(3) |
There is one exception, and it is narrower than it sounds. Under § 3333.4(c), an uninsured owner under (a)(2) who was hit by a driver operating in violation of § 23152 or § 23153 and convicted of that offense is not barred.
Read that again. The exception reaches paragraph (2) — the owner. It does not reach paragraph (3), the operator who cannot establish financial responsibility. And it requires a conviction, not an arrest and not a charge.
What Proposition 213 does not touch:
- Economic damages. Medical bills, lost earnings, future care, property damage. All of it survives.
- Passengers. The bar reaches owners and operators. A passenger in an uninsured car is not barred.
- Your workers' compensation claim. If you were working, § 3333.4 has nothing to say about it. A worker driving an uninsured personal car on a work errand gets the full range of workers' compensation benefits. Proposition 213 is a civil-damages rule; it does not reach the comp system.
Which is why, in an uninsured-driver work crash, the comp claim is not the small case. It may be the only case.
If you were working when it happened, you have two claims
Labor Code § 3852(a):
"The claim of an employee, including, but not limited to, any peace officer or firefighter, for compensation does not affect their claim or right of action for all damages proximately resulting from the injury or death against any person other than the employer."
Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy against your employer. It is not the exclusive remedy against the driver who hit you.
| What differs | Workers' compensation | The civil case |
|---|---|---|
| Fault | Not required | Required |
| Lost wages | Two-thirds, capped | Full, uncapped |
| Pain and suffering | Nothing | Yes |
| Loss of consortium | Nothing | Yes |
| Punitive damages | Nothing | Sometimes |
The carrier gets reimbursed out of the civil recovery — but not off the top. Under Labor Code § 3856(b), where the employee sues alone the court
"shall first order paid from any judgment for damages recovered the reasonable litigation expenses incurred in preparation and prosecution of such action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee"
before the employer's lien is applied. § 3856(d) puts the amount of those fees and expenses in the court's hands, not the carrier's.
And if you are a city, county, or fire-district peace officer or firefighter, there is a further limit most people have never heard of. Under Labor Code § 3852(b)(2), your employer is entitled to no more than one-third of the third-party's applicable liability policy limits where (A) your total damages exceed the net recovery left after the employer's claim, and (B) the available limits cannot fully compensate both of you. How the presumptions work for public safety.
The deadlines
| Deadline | Clock | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Two years to file suit | From the injury | Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 |
| Six months to present a claim to a public entity | From accrual | Government Code § 911.2(a) |
| Six months to sue after a written rejection | From the notice being delivered or mailed | Government Code § 945.6(a)(1) |
| Two years to sue if no written rejection notice is given | From accrual | Government Code § 945.6(a)(2) |
§ 335.1 reads in full: "Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another."
The six-month public-entity claim is the one that ends cases. A city bus, a county truck, a state highway crew, a badly designed intersection, a signal that was out — any of those puts a public entity in the case, and § 911.2(a) gives you six months, not two years. Miss it and the claim against that entity is usually over before you have finished treating.
Being partly at fault does not end your case
California is a pure comparative negligence state. Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 abolished the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule and held that
"the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering."
There is no cut-off. A plaintiff found 70% at fault recovers 30%. That is worth knowing before you accept an adjuster's account of whose fault it was.
But note how the two damage categories split among defendants. Under Civil Code § 1431.2(a), in an action based on comparative fault, "the liability of each defendant for non-economic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint." Economic damages are not limited that way by § 1431.2. Practically: a defendant who is 10% at fault can still be reached for the medical bills, but only for 10% of the pain and suffering.
When the owner is not the driver
Vehicle Code § 17151(a) caps an owner's imputed liability — liability that does not arise through principal-and-agent or master-and-servant — at
"fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the death of or injury to one person in any one accident … thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for the death of or injury to more than one person in any one accident … and … five thousand dollars ($5,000) for damage to property of others in any one accident."
§ 17151(b) bars punitive damages against the owner on that theory.
So a case built only on who owned the car is a small case. A case built on who employed the driver is not, because that is agency, and § 17151 does not cap it. Whether the driver was working at the moment of impact is often the single most valuable fact in the file.
What to do this week
Photograph the vehicles before they are repaired or sold. Crush depth and impact location are evidence, and they disappear.
Get the traffic collision report and read the party list. If any vehicle is registered to a company, a government agency, or a rental fleet, that changes the case.
Do not give a recorded statement to the other driver's insurer before you have talked to a lawyer. You are not required to.
If a public entity might be involved in any way — road design, signal timing, a government vehicle, a transit bus — say so out loud now. The six-month clock has already started.
And if you were working, in any sense, including a delivery, an errand, a commute your employer paid for, or a call you took: open the workers' compensation claim as well. How the claim process works. · I was in a car accident for work.
Common questions
Do I have a case if I was partly at fault?
Yes. California is a pure comparative negligence state under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Your damages are reduced by your share of the fault, and there is no percentage at which recovery cuts off.
I was uninsured. Is my case worthless?
No, but it is smaller. Civil Code § 3333.4 bars non-economic damages for an uninsured owner or an operator who cannot establish financial responsibility. Your economic damages — medical bills, lost earnings, future care — are not barred. And if you were working, your workers' compensation claim is untouched by § 3333.4.
How long do I have?
Two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 — but six months to present a claim if a public entity contributed, under Government Code § 911.2(a).
The other driver was working. Does that matter?
A great deal. It brings in their employer, whose insurance is usually far larger, and it takes the case outside the $15,000 imputed-liability cap in Vehicle Code § 17151.
I already have a workers' comp claim. Can I also sue?
Yes, against anyone other than your employer — Labor Code § 3852(a). The two claims run at the same time and are handled together.
Talk to a lawyer
Free consultation. No fee unless we recover. You are not responsible for costs we advance if there is no recovery.
Sources
Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 · Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51) · § 3333.4 (Proposition 213) · Government Code § 911.2 · § 945.6 · Labor Code § 3852 · § 3856 · Vehicle Code § 17151
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804
General information about California law, not legal advice about your case.
Law Offices of Solov & Teitell, APC · (213) 380-9310 · 24/7 (213) 463-6469
Printed from https://www.solovteitell.com/personal-injury/car-accidents/ · Last reviewed 2026-08-23