This page looks at settlement payouts and jury awards in personal injury cases in California. We provide statistics on reported settlements and jury verdicts, as well as factual summaries of recent cases resulting in payouts.

We also provide an overview of the key personal injury laws in California, such as the statute of limitations for injury claims, medical malpractice rules, and limits on damages.

Average Verdict in California

Jury Verdict Research did a study on personal injury verdicts in California. The study shows the compensatory median award for personal injury trials in California is $150,000. This is a lot higher than the national average of less than $40,000. But plaintiffs receive money damages in only 45 percent of cases that go to trial, which is 5 percentage points lower than the national average.

But what is the average verdict in a tort case? The average verdict is approximately $1.6 million. There is a big difference between median and average, 10 times more. When you are using this to get some lens into your own case, it is tricky. It is all about how you turn the kaleidoscope.

You can get a free online consultation for any personal injury claim from our law firm. Just fill out this brief form, and someone will get back to you quickly to answer your question or evaluate your case.

California Statute of Limitations Chart

Claim Type	Deadline	Notes
General Personal Injury	2 years	Covers most negligence cases, including car accidents and slip and falls.
Wrongful Death	2 years from death	California has a two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims.
Medical Malpractice	1 year from discovery or 3 years from injury	Whichever occurs first, with narrow exceptions for fraud, concealment, and foreign objects.
Adult Sexual Assault	Later of 10 years from the last assault or 3 years from discovery	There have also been revival windows in recent legislation for certain previously time-barred California sex abuse lawsuits
Childhood Sexual Assault	No time limit	Actions against the abuser and negligent third parties are no longer subject to a limitations deadline.
Latent Construction Defect	10-year statute of repose	Runs from the substantial completion of the construction project.

Sample California Settlements and Verdicts

Example settlement amounts and jury payouts can provide valuable insight into how settlement compensation payouts are determined. These cases illustrate key factors that influence personal injury lawsuit settlement amounts, such as the severity of injuries, the extent of medical treatment required, and whether the case is resolved through a jury verdict or pre trial settlement. We talk more about these factors in a moment.

Using example results and seeing the stories behind these results helps you better understand settlement amounts you might see in your case. But there are real limits. Every case is unique, and there is no concrete path to find the lawsuit settlement amount you should receive just by looking at a case that seems, on its face, to match yours.

$1,750,000 Settlement (Riverside County 2026): A 34-year-old woman died after seeking treatment twice at an urgent care clinic where providers allegedly failed to recognize and treat developing sepsis. She first presented with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, fever, chills, and a dangerously elevated heart rate of 141. She was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and sent home with instructions to return if symptoms did not improve. Four days later, she returned with worsening symptoms, including severe foot pain and swelling, dizziness, fatigue, shortness of breath, and another episode of rapid heart rate. Lab testing revealed abnormal results, including a very low white blood cell count and significant bandemia, and imaging identified a deep vein thrombosis. She was sent to the hospital later that day, where she was admitted for monitoring. In the early morning hours, her condition deteriorated rapidly. Although antibiotics were ordered, they were never administered before she suffered respiratory arrest and died shortly afterward. Her death certificate listed sepsis as the cause of death. Her husband and children filed a wrongful death malpractice lawsuit alleging the urgent care providers failed to recognize clear signs of sepsis and escalate treatment sooner. The case ultimately resolved through mediation for $1.75 million.

$2,500,000 Settlement (San Diego County 2025): Two pedestrians were struck in a marked crosswalk in La Jolla when a driver making a left turn from Prospect Street onto Cave Street allegedly failed to yield and hit them. Both plaintiffs claimed they suffered traumatic brain injuries, even though their initial CT scans and vascular imaging were negative, and relied on later clinical diagnoses and diffusion tensor imaging brain mapping to support those claims. They also alleged other injuries, including back injuries, and one plaintiff underwent minor spinal surgery. The driver admitted liability for the crash but disputed whether either pedestrian actually suffered a traumatic brain injury and challenged the extent of their damages. The case ultimately settled for $2.5 million.

$21,300,000 Verdict (Los Angeles 2025): A Los Angeles jury awarded over $21 million to a woman rear-ended by a commercial tractor-trailer operated by Services Group of America. The plaintiff claimed she was stopped to make a lawful left turn when the truck slammed into her vehicle. The defense argued she braked suddenly and unreasonably. The case focused heavily on accident reconstruction and the nature of her injuries, which included a traumatic brain injury and chronic pain that the defense characterized as exaggerated. Plaintiff counsel rejected a $9 million settlement and a proposed $5 million and $15 million high low agreement shortly before trial. The jury ultimately credited the plaintiff’s medical experts, awarding well over double the defense’s last offer.

$7,250,000 Verdict (Los Angeles 2024): A 74 year old woman suffered a crushed spine. While exiting a Harry Potter-themed ride at Universal Studios Hollywood, she fell when her safety harness was not secured. Making matters worse, the employees failed to stop the ride’s moving walkway as she exited. The defense was watch your step. That did not sell. The jury found the theme park responsible, awarding $250,000 in economic damages and $7 million in noneconomic damages. This case was confidentially settled in 2026 while the appellate process was ongoing.

$952,000 Settlement (California 2025): The plaintiff, a 42-year-old man, went to a hospital complaining of headaches, vomiting, and dizziness. Days later, he followed up with the defendant, a primary care physician. Despite the plaintiff’s severe headaches and his wife’s insistence on imaging, the defendant diagnosed gastritis and did not order further tests. Just 48 hours later, the plaintiff suffered a seizure and was diagnosed with a ruptured aneurysm. As a result, he suffered permanent brain damage, was left non-verbal and dependent on 24-hour care, and was discharged to a long-term care facility. The lawsuit alleged medical malpractice and negligence, claiming that the defendant’s failure to order imaging led to a missed diagnosis of the aneurysm. The defense argued that the aneurysm rupture was unforeseeable and that the plaintiff’s pre existing conditions contributed to his outcome. The $952,000 settlement appears low for such catastrophic injuries, suggesting that the plaintiff’s case may have had significant weaknesses in proving liability.

$229,500 Verdict (California 2025): The plaintiff was riding his bicycle south on a roadway owned, managed, operated, constructed, maintained, and controlled by the City of Los Angeles when he was thrown over the handlebars due to a roadway defect. He filed a lawsuit against the City, alleging that the accident was caused by a negligently misleveled section of the road that blended in with the surrounding pavement, creating a hidden hazard for cyclists. The plaintiff suffered cuts, bruising, and a fractured clavicle. The jury awarded $229,500 in damages, holding the City accountable for failing to maintain a safe roadway for cyclists.

$40,000,000 Verdict (California 2024): The decedent, 24 years old, was a pedestrian walking home from his restaurant job at 4 a.m. along the center median side of an empty westbound residential road, near an intersection. He was struck by a CHP motorcycle operated by the defendant, who was on his way to work, in the course and scope of his employment with the California Highway Patrol and the State of California. The decedent’s estate brought a wrongful death action, with assertions that included negligent training and driving at an excessive rate of speed.

$750,000 Settlement (California 2024): The plaintiff, an off-duty sheriff’s detective, was at a concert when he got separated from his group. In attempting to reunite with his friends, the plaintiff crossed a restricted area and was violently slammed to the ground and physically assaulted by a group of security officers. He suffered a loss of consciousness, a dislocated shoulder, and a fractured elbow, and sued for excessive force.

$28,724,350 Verdict (California 2024): The plaintiff presented to the emergency room in Los Angeles with a foreign object lodged in his throat. He was admitted for surgery to remove the fish bone and came under the care of the defendant, an anesthesiologist. The plaintiff agreed to proceed with monitored anesthesia care rather than general anesthesia. However, the defendant claimed another anesthesiologist forced her to use general anesthesia. During the procedure, the defendant lost control of the plaintiff’s airway after a failed intubation attempt, resulting in an anoxic brain injury. The plaintiff now suffers from severe disabilities, including the inability to care for himself, stand, walk, or eat. The jury’s $28 million verdict was reduced to $9 million by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act cap on noneconomic damages and a setoff from previous settlements with other defendants.

$6,000,000 Settlement (California 2023): The lawsuit arose from a horrible accident where an elderly woman was fatally hit by a car at this crosswalk. The City of Glendale argued that the accident was caused by the driver’s speeding and not due to the crosswalk’s lack of safety features. A $6 million settlement was finalized with the City of Glendale during the jury’s deliberation over the safety of the unmarked crosswalk. The crazy thing is that the pre trial offer in this case was zero.

$40,000 Verdict (California 2023): This was an auto accident case in which the defendant allegedly drifted across the centerline, resulting in a broadside collision with the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a middle aged female, alleged injuries including cranial nerve damage, occipital neuralgia, chronic migraine headaches, and an unspecified shoulder injury. A jury in L.A. County awarded $40,000, which included $10,000 for future medical expenses.

$2,500,000 Verdict (California 2023): The plaintiff was traveling northbound on a freeway when an object was thrown up from the roadway and went through her vehicle window, striking her in the head and face and causing her vehicle to collide with the right guardrail. The plaintiff asserted the object was ejected from the roadway by a motorcycle driven by a Los Angeles Police Officer, and she filed suit against the City. The plaintiff allegedly suffered permanent brain damage from the accident, but the City denied that the debris came from the officer’s motorcycle. The verdict included $73,000 in future medical expenses and $2.4 million for pain and suffering.

$225,000 Verdict (California 2023): The plaintiff was reportedly operating her motorcycle near an intersection when it was struck by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed she suffered personal injuries, which included a mild traumatic brain injury, post concussive syndrome, and post traumatic stress disorder, due to the collision. The defendant denied liability for the accident and also disputed the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.

$297,000 Verdict (California 2022): The plaintiff, a minor, was seriously injured when she was attacked and bitten several times by a dog on property owned by the defendants, which they leased to the dog’s owner. The lawsuit asserted strict liability claims under the California dog bite statute.

$3,000,000 Arbitration (California 2022): A man suffered a fever and severe bronchitis. His wife attempted to contact his primary care physician. She spoke with a telenurse instead. The telenurse scheduled a call with the man’s physician four hours later. The physician instructed the man to take over the counter medications. The following day, he presented to the ER. He was diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia and MRSA. The man also suffered kidney failure, acute respiratory failure, septic shock, neutropenia, and hemoptysis. He took antibiotics. The man died several days later. His wife alleged negligence against the healthcare provider. She claimed the telenurse failed to send him to the ER, schedule an in person appointment, and appreciate his symptoms. Following arbitration, the widow received $3,000,000.

$750,000 Verdict (California 2021): A 30 something man was T boned at a Santa Monica intersection. The man suffered a C5 6 herniation. He underwent epidural steroid injections. The man now required a cervical disc replacement procedure. He alleged negligence against the at fault driver. The man claimed he ran a red light and failed to yield the right of way. A Los Angeles County jury awarded $750,000.

$2,250,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 24 year old man was rear ended in Torrance. He suffered an L5 S1 herniation. The man underwent epidural injections and chiropractic care. He also received a spinal cord stimulator implant. The man alleged negligence against the at fault driver. He claimed he failed to operate his vehicle safely. This case settled for $2,250,000.

$832,798 Verdict (California 2021): A man was T boned at an intersection in Los Angeles County. He suffered severe personal injuries. The man underwent medical treatment. He alleged negligence against the at fault driver. The man claimed she failed to maintain an appropriate lookout and yield the right of way. A Los Angeles County jury awarded $832,798.

$1,250,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 50 something woman was sideswiped. She suffered lumbosacral protrusions and cervical stenosis. She underwent chiropractic therapy, physical therapy, and spinal injections. The woman also underwent a cervical fusion. She experienced limited mobility and walking difficulties. The woman alleged negligence against the at fault driver. She claimed she made a negligent lane change and failed to maintain an appropriate lookout. This case settled for $1,250,000.

$1,715,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 39 year old pedestrian was struck at a crosswalk. She suffered a knee injury and multiple disc bulges. The woman initially underwent chiropractic therapy and epidural injection administration. She continued to experience back pain. The woman eventually underwent a spinal fusion, a neurostimulator implantation, and a knee arthroscopy. She alleged negligence against the at fault driver. The woman claimed she failed to yield to a pedestrian and maintain an appropriate lookout. This case settled for $1,715,000.

$10,000,000 Settlement (California 2021): Three people, a 33 year old man, an 18 year old woman, and an 18 year old man, traveled along Interstate 15. They were rear ended. The vehicle caught fire after a police vehicle struck it. The two men died at the scene. The woman suffered back fractures and third degree burns to over one fourth of her body. Her back fractures healed. However, the woman required scar reduction and skin grafts. The woman and the two men’s surviving families claimed the initial driver drove while intoxicated, while the police officer excessively sped. This case settled for $10,000,000.

$5,000,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 5-year-old boy was hospitalized. He was intubated. The hospital staff removed the breathing tube. During the removal, the boy’s airway closed. He went into respiratory arrest. The boy suffered oxygen deprivation. He suffered a catastrophic brain injury. The boy now required round the clock care. His parents alleged negligence against the hospital. They claimed the staff negligently removed the breathing tube. This malpractice claim was resolved for a settlement amount of $5,000,000.

$5,700,000 Settlement (California 2021): A newborn girl suffered hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy. She developed permanent brain damage. The girl’s parents alleged negligence against the hospital. They claimed the staff failed to properly administer Pitocin, timely address fetal distress, order a C-section, and timely resuscitate their child. This case settled for $5,700,000.

$1,400,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 22-year-old woman was struck at an intersection. She suffered rib fractures, a concussion, and an L4-5 herniation. She underwent physical therapy for four months. The woman also underwent a microdiscectomy. She continued to experience back pain. The woman alleged negligence against the at-fault driver. She claimed he excessively sped and failed to yield to a pedestrian. This case settled for $1,400,000.

$2,250,000 Settlement (California 2021): A 49-year-old roofer fell 18 feet to the ground off a roof he was working on. He suffered fractures to his cheekbone, eye socket, skull, and C7 vertebra. The man also became unconscious because of his head injuries. An ambulance transported him to the nearest hospital, where he regained consciousness. He was hospitalized for three days. The man claimed residual pain, memory loss, and attention issues. He filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, who was insured by California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund. The case settled for a settlement amount of $2,250,000.

$1,382,000 Verdict (California 2021): The 54-year-old nurse was driving in Torrance. As she slowed down in traffic, the vehicle behind her rear ended hers. She suffered an L4 5 disc bulge, mild stenosis, and resultant radiculopathy. The woman underwent a discectomy two years later. She also underwent spinal fusion surgery three months after the discectomy. The woman would eventually undergo revision fusion surgery the following year. She claimed that her injuries affected her ability to walk long distances, and she was more sluggish in her daily routines. The Los Angeles County jury awarded her a $1,382,000 verdict.

$21,513,000 Verdict (California 2020): An 18-year-old farmworker was a passenger in a van that was traveling on Avenue 15 in Madera. A vehicle rear-ended the van. The man suffered a C5 burst fracture. He was brought to the hospital, where staff performed emergency cervical surgery on him. The man was rendered a partial C4 quadriplegic following the surgery. He could only partly use his upper arms, wrists, and hands. He was now wheelchair bound for life. His doctors opined that the use of his hands and wrists was seriously impaired. The Madera County jury awarded him a $21,513,000 verdict.

$1,357,746 Verdict (California 2014): A woman was driving through an intersection when a 16-year-old, who possessed a provisional driver’s license, ran a red light and struck her vehicle. Following the collision, she was treated with multiple surgeries and years of physical therapy. She sued the driver and his parents, the vehicle’s owners, for negligence. Plaintiff claimed that at the time of the accident, she was attending court reporting classes and now cannot work that job because she can no longer sit for extended periods. Plaintiff also claimed that she was expected to require at least three hip replacements during her lifetime. Defendants argued that the 16-year-old had come to a complete stop at the light but then took his foot off the brake, causing the vehicle to roll into the intersection. However, two witnesses contested that the defendant driver was traveling at least 45 mph upon impact. A Kern County jury found in favor of the plaintiff for $1,357,746.

$560,000 Settlement (California 2014): A 33-year-old state employee was driving her SUV on eastbound Rancho Penasquitos Boulevard in San Diego with her 2-year-old daughter and 61-year-old aunt riding as passengers. Without warning, a westbound truck veered into their lane and collided almost head-on. Both drivers and the passengers were taken by ambulance to separate hospitals. The state employee sustained a left ankle sprain, bruises to her chest, abdomen, both legs, and lacerations to her forehead and lower leg. She was also diagnosed with a bulging lumbar disc and required epidural injections and physical therapy. Her aunt sustained eight fractured ribs, multiple lacerations throughout her body, and internal injuries that required her to be placed in a medically induced coma for three weeks after an emergency resection of 14 inches of her intestines. The two-year-old sustained a laceration to her upper lip, a bloody nose, and some abdominal bruising. They sued the driver of the truck and his employer for negligence. The employer claimed that the driver was driving his own personal pickup truck at the time of the accident and not in the scope of his employment. The driver claimed he had no recollection of the accident as he suffered a retroperitoneal hematoma before the collision, which rendered him unconscious, causing him to swerve into the plaintiffs’ lane. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued the driver suffered the retroperitoneal hematoma because of the collision, not prior. The parties agreed to a total settlement of $560,000.

$1,250,000 Settlement (California 2014): An 80-year-old Korean War veteran became a resident of a veterans nursing facility after suffering from multiple strokes. He was later transferred to a sister nursing facility, where he was dropped on two occasions while being transported by the facility’s caregivers. After the second fall, he suffered a fracture of his vertebrae that ultimately left him paralyzed below the waist. The immobility caused him to suffer from multiple painful pressure sores, including a Stage 4 pressure sore on his left ankle. He sued the facility, claiming negligent hiring and supervision. The parties agreed to settle for $1,250,000.

$370,000 Verdict (California 2014): A 46-year-old was painting a property in Hemet when he leaned over the railing to clean a piece of his equipment. The railing collapsed underneath him, and he fell, injuring his left shoulder. He visited a local emergency room where he was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff of the left dominant shoulder. The tear required two repair surgeries and physical therapy. He also sustained a herniated cervical disc from the fall. He sued the property owners, claiming the defendants failed to warn of a dangerous condition. Plaintiff claimed he was unable to use his left arm, which prevented him from running his painting company. Defendants argued the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, noting inconsistent exam results. A Riverside jury found in favor of the plaintiff for $370,000.

$4,000,000 Settlement (California 2014): A 16-year-old woman presented at a San Francisco hospital for labor. At the time, it became apparent that the infant was in distress, but by the time the child was ultimately delivered through Cesarean section, he suffered a catastrophic brain injury. Now seven years old, the child suffers from spastic cerebral palsy and epilepsy, is unable to walk or crawl, cannot communicate, and requires 24-hour care. The child’s great-grandmother sued the hospital on his behalf for medical malpractice, claiming the staff failed to timely deliver the infant when he demonstrated signs of distress. Defendant denied all liability. The parties agreed to a settlement amount of $4,000,000.

How Are Personal Injury Settlements in California Calculated?

The value of a California personal injury settlement is influenced by more factors than we can count. There are so many variables in a given case to calculate the settlement payout. But there are six critical factors we see over and over that drive compensation amounts. While no two cases are identical, understanding how courts and insurance companies evaluate claims can help you get a better handle on your potential personal injury lawsuit settlement amount. Below, we discuss key factors that impact personal injury verdicts and settlements in California, including jurisdiction, severity of injuries, and legal representation.

1. The Severity of Injuries and Medical Treatment

One of the biggest factors in determining how much most personal injury settlements are is the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries. More serious injuries result in higher settlements and verdicts. For example, herniated disc injury settlements with steroid injections in California tend to be lower than cases involving spinal fusion surgery or permanent disability. Cases involving long-term medical treatment, such as six months of physical therapy, or injuries requiring three epidural injections for pain management, can significantly increase settlement values.

2. Venue and Jurisdiction: Best Places for Plaintiffs in California

Where a case is filed, known as venue, plays a huge role in potential settlement value. Some counties are known for being more favorable to injury victims. The best jurisdictions in California for personal injury plaintiffs include:

Los Angeles County
San Francisco County
Alameda County
San Bernardino County
Santa Clara County

On the other hand, more conservative jurisdictions like San Diego County and Orange County tend to favor defendants, which can result in lower settlements in California.

3. Strength of Liability and Evidence

If these were listed in order, this factor would come first. To get a good settlement for a bodily injury claim, you need a responsible defendant, ideally with a deep pocket (see number 5 below). Liability plays a crucial role in determining California personal injury settlements. When fault is clear, such as rear-end car accidents or cases where security footage captures a slip and fall, settlements will be higher. Cases with comparative fault, where the defendant argues the plaintiff was partially at fault, often see lower payouts because the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff.

4. Type of Personal Injury Case

Certain types of personal injury cases in California result in higher settlement values. Here are some averages:

Car accidents: Settlement amounts vary widely, but cases involving severe injuries or six months of physical therapy can result in six or seven-figure payouts.
Slip and fall cases: The average slip and fall settlement in California depends on factors like location, liability, and injury severity. Cases involving broken bones or traumatic brain injuries settle higher than soft tissue injuries.
Medical malpractice: High California personal injury verdicts are often seen in medical malpractice cases, especially those involving birth injuries and other injuries that cause catastrophic damage and future economic losses.
Workers’ compensation: Settlements vary. They are not as high as a personal injury claim, all things being equal.

5. Availability of Insurance and Policy Limits

A key factor in determining lawsuit settlement amounts is whether the defendant has sufficient insurance coverage. If a defendant is underinsured, even strong cases may settle for less than their full value unless additional defendants can be brought into the case. There is also an issue in malpractice lawsuits due to the cap on non-economic damages.

6. Quality of Legal Representation

This does not require an explanation. The best personal injury lawyers in California maximize settlement payout for their clients. It makes a huge difference.

California Personal Injury Law

Below is a summary of some of the most important aspects of personal injury law in California that you need to know.

California Personal Injury Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a personal injury lawsuit in California to pursue compensation for injuries.

The statute of limitations for most personal injury or wrongful death actions in California is set forth in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, which gives the injured party or accident victim two years to bring suit. In a simple auto accident or slip and fall case, the two-year limitations period in California usually begins to run from the date that the accident occurs. In more complex cases, such as latent injuries or certain professional negligence claims, the timing rules can be different.

Medical malpractice is one of the biggest exceptions. California medical malpractice claims are governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5, which generally requires suit to be filed within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury, and in no event more than three years from the date of injury, subject to narrow exceptions.

Statute of Repose

In California, a statute of repose is a legal deadline that limits the time within which a plaintiff can file a lawsuit for damages. The statute of repose differs from the statute of limitations in that it is not based on the date of the injury or accident, but rather on the date of a particular event or occurrence, such as the date a product was manufactured or a building was completed, regardless of when the injury happens or is discovered. Lawyers get tripped up on the statute of repose because they are so focused on the statute of limitations.

There are different statutes of repose for different types of injuries:

Construction Defect Cases (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 337.15)
A lawsuit for damages caused by a latent construction defect must be filed within 10 years of the substantial completion of the construction project. This means that even if a structural defect in a building is discovered 11 years after completion, the claim is barred, regardless of when the damage or injury actually occurred.

Medical Malpractice Cases (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5)
The outside deadline for medical malpractice claims is generally three years from the date of injury, even if the patient does not discover the malpractice within that time. However, if the malpractice is discovered within that period, a separate statute of limitations allows one year from the date of discovery to file a lawsuit. Exceptions exist for fraud, intentional concealment, or the presence of a foreign object left in the body.

California birth injury statute of limitations

Product Liability Cases
Unlike many states, California does not have a broad, general statute of repose for product liability cases. However, courts often dismiss cases against manufacturers when a product is very old, based on arguments about evidence deterioration and fairness to defendants.

Wrongful Death Claims (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1)
California has a statute of limitations of two years from the date of death for wrongful death claims. There is no separate general statute of repose for wrongful death claims, meaning courts do not impose an absolute cut off unrelated to the date of injury.

California’s Pure Comparative Fault Rule

California follows a pure comparative fault system, which means that a plaintiff’s recovery can be reduced based on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault in causing the injury. This doctrine allows parties to recover damages in proportion to the fault of the other parties involved in the incident. Under this principle, the fact finder can reduce the damages awarded to a plaintiff by the percentage of fault assigned to that plaintiff.

In this system, the defendant bears the burden of proving the plaintiff’s comparative fault. Comparative fault applies if the plaintiff’s own negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm. Unlike modified comparative fault states, California does not bar recovery just because the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. Even if the plaintiff is 60 percent or 80 percent at fault, the plaintiff can still recover the remaining percentage of damages from other responsible parties.

This matters in car accident cases, premises liability cases, and many other negligence lawsuits. Clear liability cases settle higher. Cases with a real comparative fault argument often settle lower because the defense has a built in damages reduction argument.

California Collateral Source Rule

The collateral source rule in California is a legal principle that generally allows an injured party to recover damages for injuries and losses regardless of whether the plaintiff received compensation from another source, such as private insurance or certain benefits from a collateral source. This idea is counterintuitive for many. But it is the law.

The collateral source rule determines how much a tortfeasor must pay an injured victim. Under this rule, if the victim receives compensation from an independent source, that payment does not automatically reduce the damages the tortfeasor owes. The principle behind this rule is that individuals who have paid for insurance should benefit from their foresight, while the wrongdoer should not profit from the victim’s prudence. It also serves as a policy incentive, encouraging people to maintain insurance coverage for personal injuries and other unforeseen events.

Example of Collateral Source Rule in Action

For example, imagine a person is injured in a car accident caused by another driver’s negligence. The injured person seeks medical treatment and incurs medical bills. Under California law, the plaintiff can generally seek recovery of the amount actually paid or incurred for past medical care, not inflated billed amounts that were never paid and are no longer owed. This is a big deal in many cases because jurors often consider pain and suffering damages in light of the medical bills claim.

Limits and Exceptions

There are some exceptions to the collateral source rule in California. For example, if the injured party’s collateral source benefits were received as a result of the defendant’s negligence, such as workers’ compensation benefits, the defendant may be entitled to a reduction in damages or a lien issue may arise. Additionally, the collateral source rule may not apply in the same way in certain types of cases, such as medical malpractice cases.

There are also limitations on bills that are paid by or for the plaintiff. A plaintiff can generally recover the actual amount paid or still owed on past medical bills, not a higher billed amount that nobody paid or remains obligated to pay. Allowing the jury to see both the actual payment and a higher estimated value could confuse them and make it seem like insurance or another source helped cover the costs, which runs into collateral source concerns. The practical point is that California plaintiffs are not entitled to recover phantom medical bills, but defendants also do not get a free pass just because a plaintiff had insurance.

California Medical Malpractice Caps and Fee Limits

Rule	Current Framework	Why It Matters
Noneconomic damages cap in non wrongful death malpractice cases	$470,000 in 2026	This is the scheduled AB 35 amount for 2026, subject to the statutory structure for multiple categories of defendants.
Noneconomic damages cap in wrongful death malpractice cases	$650,000 in 2026	This is the scheduled AB 35 amount for 2026, again subject to the statute’s category rules.
Attorney fee cap before complaint or arbitration is filed	25%	If recovery is achieved in a pre-filing settlement, California limits the contingency fee to 25 percent.
Attorney fee cap after complaint or arbitration is filed	33%	If recovery occurs after filing, California allows a 33 percent contingency fee in malpractice cases.

Uber Lobbies to Undercut Victims

In 2026, California is headed toward one of the most expensive and contentious ballot initiative fights in years, with Uber and the plaintiffs’ bar backing competing proposals that could significantly reshape the state’s personal injury system.

The dispute centers on an initiative Uber filed last fall that would cap contingency fees for personal injury lawyers at 25 percent and limit the amount of medical damages that can be recovered in car crash cases across the state. Uber says the measure would protect accident victims from excessive legal fees and ensure they keep at least 75 percent of any settlement or verdict.

Trial lawyers quickly countered with three competing initiatives aimed at expanding Uber’s liability for passenger injuries, increasing accountability for alleged misconduct, and preventing new laws that limit access to legal representation. The Consumer Attorneys of California is supporting the effort and has already raised tens of millions of dollars for the campaign. Does this match what Uber will ultimately invest? No. But we have a better message and do not need as much to get that message out there.

The doctors are with us on this one. Medical providers have created a political action committee to challenge Uber’s measure. Doctors and healthcare groups argue the proposal could restrict recovery of medical expenses, which they say may ultimately limit accident victims’ access to both legal representation and necessary medical treatment.

Informed Consent Law in California

In California, the law requires healthcare providers to obtain informed consent from patients before performing any medical procedure or treatment. This means that healthcare providers must disclose material information to their patients about the nature of the treatment, the risks and benefits associated with the treatment, and any available alternatives.

The informed consent process is designed to ensure that patients are fully informed about their medical treatment options and can make an informed decision about their care. It also serves as a mechanism for healthcare providers to obtain legal protection against medical malpractice claims related to a lack of informed consent.

In California, the informed consent process involves four key elements:

Disclosure of information: Healthcare providers must disclose information about the nature of the treatment, including the expected benefits and risks, as well as any alternative treatments.
Capacity: Patients must have the capacity to understand the information provided and make a decision about their treatment.
Voluntariness: Patients must be making the decision voluntarily, without any undue pressure or coercion from the healthcare provider.
Consent: Patients must provide consent to the treatment, either orally or in writing.

If a healthcare provider fails to obtain informed consent from a patient, the provider may be held liable for medical malpractice if the patient suffers harm as a result of the treatment.

The informed consent process may vary depending on the type of treatment or procedure being performed. For example, some treatments may require more detailed disclosures than others, or may require special consent forms to be signed. It is very case specific, which is why a jury is often needed to resolve the dispute over what informed consent was needed.

If you have been the victim of medical malpractice in California related to a lack of informed consent, it is important to consult with an experienced medical malpractice attorney who can help you understand your legal rights and options. An attorney can help you pursue compensation for your injuries and losses, as well as hold the healthcare provider accountable for the provider’s actions.

Battery v. Informed Consent

Battery is also a potential claim in an informed consent case. If a doctor performs a treatment on a patient that is substantially different from the treatment for which the patient gave consent, it can be considered a clear case of battery. But the occurrence of an undisclosed potential complication, which was a known risk but not an integral part of the treatment procedure, is generally an informed consent issue under California law.

2023 California Law on Caps for Malpractice Attorneys’ Fees and Damages

Starting from 2023, the state of California introduced new regulations on legal fees and noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits, through AB 35. This law, signed by Governor Newsom, created new fee structures and updated damage caps.

The legislation amended existing law regarding the contingency fee an attorney may contract for or collect. Previously, the law tied the contingency fee limits to the amount recovered, where an attorney could collect 40 percent of the first $50,000, 33 percent of the next $50,000, 25 percent of the next $500,000, and 15 percent of any amount exceeding $600,000. The new legislation, however, links the fee limits to the phase of the representation when the recovery is made.

So under AB 35, the amount attorneys can collect from the award depends on when the recovery is made. If recovery is achieved through a settlement before filing a civil complaint or a demand for arbitration, attorneys can claim 25 percent of the recovery. If the recovery is made after the commencement of a case or arbitration, attorneys can collect 33 percent.

The legislation also revised the old $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages by raising it and allowing future increases on a schedule. It introduces two distinct tracks depending on whether the case involves a wrongful death claim. In a wrongful death case, the cap began at $500,000 in 2023 and increases by $50,000 per year until it reaches $1 million. In medical malpractice cases not involving wrongful death, the cap began at $350,000 and increases by $40,000 per year until it reaches a maximum of $750,000. In 2026, that means the basic scheduled cap amounts are $470,000 for non-wrongful death cases and $650,000 for wrongful death cases, subject to the structure of the statute.

California Sex Abuse Lawsuits

In California, victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault have the legal right to file a civil lawsuit and get financial compensation for the harm caused by the abuse. Abuse survivors can file California sex abuse lawsuits against not only the individual who committed the abuse, but also against third parties like schools, churches, youth organizations, rideshare companies, employers, landlords, or others who negligently enabled the abuse to occur.

California is one of the most favorable states in the country for civil sex abuse claims. Adult sexual assault claims are generally governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16. In most cases, a plaintiff has the later of ten years from the last act of sexual assault or three years from the date the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that an injury or illness resulted from the assault. California has also created revival windows in recent legislation for certain previously time-barred adult sexual assault claims, which has opened the door to many lawsuits that would once have been dismissed on limitations grounds.

Childhood sexual assault claims are even more favorable to survivors. Under California law, there is no longer a civil statute of limitations for actions based on childhood sexual assault, including actions against the perpetrator and against third parties whose wrongful or negligent conduct was a legal cause of the abuse. That is a very big deal in California and one reason the state has become such an important forum for institutional sex abuse litigation.

These cases are often not just about the abuser. They are about negligent institutions, repeated warning signs, ignored complaints, poor supervision, bad hiring, failure to report, and the same kind of system failure that lets abuse continue for years. The best California sex abuse lawsuits focus on both the abuser and the institution that allowed the abuse to happen.

California Product Liability and Mass Tort Lawsuits

California product liability law holds manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and others in the supply chain strictly liable for injuries caused by defective products. This means that a plaintiff need not prove negligence. The plaintiff needs only to show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. California recognizes several types of product defects that can lead to liability:

Design Defects: These occur when a product is inherently unsafe due to its design. In California, there are two tests for determining whether a design is defective:

Consumer Expectations Test: A product is defective if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. To meet the consumer expectations test, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s product did not function as safely as an average consumer would anticipate when used, or even misused, in a reasonably expected manner. Additionally, the product’s failure to perform safely must have played a significant role in causing the plaintiff’s injury.

Risk-Benefit Test: A product may be deemed defective if its design poses an excessive, preventable danger. Importantly, once the plaintiff proves that the defendant’s design caused injury, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the design’s benefits outweigh its risks.

Manufacturing Defects: These occur when a product is not made according to its intended design, resulting in a product that is more dangerous than expected. Manufacturing defects are often easier to prove because they focus on deviations from the intended product design.

Warning Defects, Failure to Warn: These occur when a manufacturer fails to provide adequate instructions or warnings about the dangers of using the product. In California, manufacturers are required to warn consumers about the potential risks associated with the foreseeable use of their products, even if the product itself is not defective.

There are currently a number of product liability mass torts impacting large numbers of California residents, including claims that our firm is currently handling:

Many California product liability lawsuits involve national mass torts, but California often plays an outsized role. The state has major technology companies, pharmaceutical defendants, medical device users, agricultural exposure cases, and some of the most plaintiff-friendly consumer protection and product liability law in the country. Below are some of the major lawsuits California plaintiffs are pursuing:

Uber Sex Abuse Lawsuit

California is one of the central battlegrounds in the Uber sexual assault litigation. Uber is headquartered in San Francisco, and the federal Uber sexual assault MDL is pending in the Northern District of California. The state court docket is also very large. Uber did not do enough to screen drivers, respond to prior complaints, remove dangerous drivers from the platform, or warn passengers about known safety risks. Plaintiffs also point to the obvious imbalance in these cases: Uber built a system that asks passengers to get into a stranger’s car, often alone and often at night, while insisting it should not be responsible when that safety system fails. Lyft faces similar claims in sexual assault lawsuits involving rideshare drivers.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Roundup litigation has deep California roots. Some of the most important early Roundup verdicts came out of California, and glyphosate has also been listed under California’s Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. The lawsuits allege that long-term exposure to Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and related cancers, and that Monsanto failed to give users a fair warning about that risk. This litigation has always had a California feel to it — big agriculture, home garden use, school and municipal spraying, wine country concerns, and a long fight over what the public was told about glyphosate.

Video Game Addiction Lawsuit

California is a natural forum for video game addiction lawsuits because so many major technology and gaming companies either operate there or shape their products around California-based design, marketing, and platform decisions. Many of these lawsuits have been filed in California. Plaintiffs accuse gaming companies of building games to keep children and teenagers playing longer than is healthy, using reward loops, microtransactions, loot boxes, social pressure, streaks, and constant engagement mechanics. The core argument is not simply that kids played too much. These companies allegedly studied compulsive use, profited from it, and failed to give families a real warning about the risks.

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

Paraquat lawsuits claim that exposure to the commercial herbicide may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. These claims are brought by farmers, agricultural workers, applicators, and others who allege they were exposed without adequate warnings about potential neurological risks. California has a massive agricultural economy, so many of these cases come from there.

Depo Provera Lawsuits

Depo Provera lawsuits allege that women who used the injectable birth control drug for extended periods faced an increased risk of developing meningioma brain tumors. Plaintiffs claim that repeated injections over many years created risks that were not clearly disclosed to patients. In California, these cases may involve familiar product liability questions: what did the manufacturer know, when did it know it, what did the label say, and did patients get enough information to make a real choice about long-term use?

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit

The Bard PowerPort is a catheter port device implanted under the skin, often used by cancer patients who need chemotherapy or other long term IV treatment. The lawsuits allege that defects in the device can cause fractures, migration, infection, blood clots, and other serious complications. These are high-stakes medical device cases because the patients receiving these ports are often already medically vulnerable. Plaintiffs argue that Bard knew or should have known about device failure risks and failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors and patients.

Dupixent Lawsuit

Dupixent is a biologic drug prescribed for eczema, asthma, and other inflammatory conditions. Lawsuits allege that Dupixent can trigger, accelerate, or mask cutaneous T cell lymphoma and other rare blood cancers. The central issue is whether patients and doctors were adequately warned that symptoms being treated as eczema or dermatitis could actually be signs of a more serious condition. That warning issue is what gives these cases their force.

Hair Relaxer Lawsuit

Hair relaxer lawsuits allege that long term use of chemical hair straightening products may be linked to uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids, and other hormone related injuries. Plaintiffs allege these products were heavily promoted to Black women for years while manufacturers failed to squarely disclose the potential endocrine disrupting risks. The strongest part of these cases is not just the science. It is the marketing history and the complete indifference these companies had about the potential risk of these products.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit

Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits involve implanted devices used to treat chronic back, neck, and nerve pain. Plaintiffs allege that some devices malfunctioned or caused serious complications, including painful electrical shocks, burning sensations, infections, lead migration, device failure, and removal or revision surgery. These cases often turn on whether the patient was given a realistic picture of the risks before implantation. The defense wants to frame complications as known risks of surgery. Plaintiffs push back by focusing on device defects, warning failures, and whether the manufacturer minimized problems that should have been disclosed.

Vaginal Mesh Lawsuit

Vaginal mesh lawsuits involve mesh products used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. These cases have been going on for years and there have been many California victims.

Plaintiffs allege that these implants caused mesh erosion, pelvic pain, infections, organ perforation, painful intercourse, scarring, and repeated revision surgeries. These cases are a reminder that a medical device can be marketed as a simple fix while leaving patients with permanent, life altering complications. California plaintiffs are bringing these claims under product liability and failure to warn theories when the evidence shows the risks were greater than patients and doctors were led to believe.

Internal Bra Mesh Lawsuit

Internal bra mesh lawsuits focus on mesh products used in breast reconstruction, breast lifts, breast reductions, and related procedures. Plaintiffs allege that some of these products were not adequately studied for long term placement in breast tissue and may cause infection, chronic pain, inflammation, scarring, poor healing, tissue damage, mesh migration, and revision surgery. These lawsuits are still in the early stages, and there are preemption issues that have to be taken seriously. But our lawyers are very high on these cases because the alleged injuries are serious and the long term safety questions are hard for defendants to wave away.

Olympus Scope Infection Lawsuit

Olympus duodenoscope lawsuits allege that certain scopes used in ERCP procedures exposed patients to serious infection risks because the devices were difficult to fully clean and sterilize between uses. The disturbing part of these claims is simple: patients went in for a medical procedure and allegedly faced infection risks from a reusable device that hospitals could not reliably disinfect. Plaintiffs contend Olympus knew or should have known about the cleaning problem and failed to give hospitals, doctors, and patients adequate warnings.

California Asbestos Lawsuits

Asbestos is a material that was widely used for over a century all across the state of California. Exposure to airborne asbestos is known to cause a rare and deadly type of cancer called mesothelioma and can also cause lung cancer. Anyone who worked around or was otherwise exposed to asbestos and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma can file an asbestos lawsuit and get compensation for injuries. California asbestos lawsuits result in millions in settlement compensation every year.

Get a Personal Injury Lawyer to Fight for You

If you have a serious personal injury or wrongful death claim, get a free online case evaluation or call 800 553 8082.