California Personal Injury Statute of Limitations Exceptions: When the Clock Stops

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 establishes a two-year statute of limitations for most personal injury claims. This means you generally have two years from the date of injury to file a lawsuit against the responsible party. The clock typically starts ticking on the date the accident or injury occurred, not when you decide to pursue legal action or when you finish medical treatment.

This deadline applies to a wide range of personal injury cases including car accidents, slip and fall incidents, dog bites, assault and battery, and general negligence claims. The two-year period is strictly enforced by California courts—if you file even one day late without a valid exception, judges will dismiss your case regardless of how strong your evidence or how severe your injuries.

Understanding when the statute begins is crucial. For most accidents with immediate injuries, the date is clear. However, complications arise with delayed symptoms, continuing treatment, or situations where multiple parties share liability. The standard rule provides certainty, but its rigid application can create injustice in cases where victims couldn't reasonably have known about their injuries or legal rights within the two-year window.

California's delayed discovery rule is perhaps the most important exception to the standard statute of limitations. Under this doctrine, the two-year clock doesn't start until you discover—or reasonably should have discovered—both the injury and its cause. This exception recognizes that some injuries aren't immediately apparent, and it would be unjust to bar claims before victims even know they have grounds to sue.

The delayed discovery rule commonly applies in cases involving latent injuries, toxic exposure, medical malpractice with delayed symptoms, and defective products that cause harm over time. For example, if you were exposed to toxic chemicals at work but didn't develop symptoms until three years later, your statute of limitations would begin when you discovered the illness and its connection to the exposure, not on the exposure date itself.

However, courts apply an objective reasonable person standard when evaluating delayed discovery claims. You can't simply claim ignorance—you must prove that a reasonable person in your situation wouldn't have discovered the injury or its cause earlier. This requires documenting when symptoms first appeared, when you sought medical attention, when doctors identified the condition, and when you learned about the potential connection to someone else's negligence. Medical records, expert testimony, and contemporaneous documentation become critical evidence in delayed discovery cases.

California law provides special protections for injured minors by tolling (pausing) the statute of limitations until they reach age 18. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 352, if a child is injured, the two-year statute of limitations doesn't begin running until their 18th birthday. This means a child injured at age 10 would have until age 20 to file a personal injury lawsuit.

This tolling provision exists because minors cannot legally file lawsuits on their own behalf and may not have parents or guardians who recognize the need for legal action. The extended deadline ensures that children aren't deprived of compensation due to adult inaction during their minority. However, parents can—and often should—file claims on behalf of injured children well before the child turns 18, especially when medical expenses and ongoing care needs are substantial.

Important exceptions apply to this rule. Claims against government entities have much shorter deadlines even for minors, typically requiring a claim within six months of injury. Additionally, if a parent or guardian files a lawsuit on the child's behalf and then dismisses it, the tolling provision may not apply to subsequent filings. Medical malpractice claims involving minors also have special rules limiting how long the statute can be tolled. Consulting with a personal injury attorney experienced in pediatric injury cases ensures you don't miss critical deadlines that could affect your child's future compensation.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 352 also tolls the statute of limitations for individuals who lack the mental capacity to make legal decisions. If you were mentally incapacitated at the time of injury or became incapacitated afterward, the two-year clock may pause until you regain capacity. This exception recognizes that people suffering from severe mental illness, dementia, traumatic brain injury, or other cognitive impairments cannot reasonably be expected to protect their legal rights. Courts require evidence of substantial cognitive impairment that prevents understanding the nature of legal proceedings or making informed decisions about pursuing a claim.

California law also recognizes that defendants shouldn't benefit from actively concealing their negligence or wrongdoing. Under the fraudulent concealment doctrine, if a defendant deliberately hides facts that would have revealed your injury or its cause, the statute of limitations may be tolled until you discover—or reasonably should have discovered—the concealed information. This exception prevents wrongdoers from running out the clock through deception.

Fraudulent concealment requires more than simple failure to disclose. You must prove the defendant had a duty to disclose the information, actively concealed or suppressed material facts, and intended to prevent you from discovering your claim. For example, if a property owner knew about a dangerous condition that caused your slip and fall injury but deliberately covered it up and lied about its existence, fraudulent concealment might apply. If you suffered a traumatic brain injury that caused temporary cognitive impairment, the statute would be tolled during the period of incapacity but would resume once doctors determine you've regained decision-making capacity.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 351 provides that if a defendant leaves California after the injury occurs but before the statute of limitations expires, the time they spend outside the state doesn't count toward the two-year deadline. This tolling provision prevents defendants from evading liability by simply leaving California until the statute of limitations runs out. This exception applies only to defendants who were in California when the injury occurred or when the cause of action arose, then subsequently left the state.

Equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents defendants from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense when their own conduct caused the plaintiff to delay filing suit. Unlike fraudulent concealment, which requires proof of intentional deception, equitable estoppel can apply when a defendant's actions or statements reasonably led you to believe you didn't need to file a lawsuit immediately. Common scenarios include an insurance company promising to settle your claim if you don't file suit, then denying the claim after the statute expires.

For car accident cases involving out-of-state drivers, commercial trucking companies, or rideshare drivers who live elsewhere, these exceptions can be particularly important. Proving equitable estoppel requires showing the defendant made representations that led you to believe filing suit was unnecessary, you reasonably relied on those representations, and you would be harmed if the defendant is now allowed to assert the statute of limitations defense. Written communications, recorded conversations, and witness testimony about the defendant's statements become crucial evidence.

Claims against government entities in California operate under dramatically different rules than standard personal injury cases. The California Tort Claims Act requires you to file an administrative claim with the appropriate government agency within six months of the injury—not two years. This shortened deadline applies whether you're suing a city, county, state agency, public school, or any other governmental entity.

The six-month deadline is strictly enforced with very limited exceptions. You must file your claim on the proper form, with the correct agency, including all required information about your injury, the circumstances, and the damages you're seeking. If the government denies your claim or doesn't respond within 45 days, you then have six months to file a lawsuit in court. Missing either the initial six-month administrative claim deadline or the subsequent lawsuit deadline typically means losing your right to compensation entirely.

Limited exceptions exist for government claims. If you were physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to file within six months, you may petition the court for relief. If you were a minor at the time of injury, you have until your 19th birthday (or one year after the injury, whichever is later) to file the administrative claim. However, these exceptions are narrowly construed. If you were injured in a pedestrian accident involving a city bus, a bicycle accident caused by a dangerous road condition, or any incident involving government property or employees, consulting a personal injury lawyer immediately is critical to preserve your rights.

Medical malpractice cases in California have their own unique statute of limitations framework. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.5, you generally have three years from the date of injury or one year from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the injury, whichever occurs first. However, California imposes an absolute maximum limit: no medical malpractice lawsuit can be filed more than three years after the date of injury, regardless of when you discovered it. The only exception is for cases involving foreign objects left in the body during surgery.

For minors, medical malpractice rules are more complex. Children under age six when the malpractice occurred have until their eighth birthday to file suit, but no more than three years from the date of injury. Children over age six follow the standard adult rules. These shortened deadlines for medical malpractice claims mean that if you suspect a doctor, hospital, or healthcare provider caused your injuries through negligence, you need to act quickly.

The continuing violation doctrine applies when a defendant's wrongful conduct is ongoing rather than a single discrete event. Under this theory, the statute of limitations doesn't begin until the wrongful conduct ceases, because each day of continued violation constitutes a new injury. For example, if you're exposed to toxic substances at a workplace over several years, the continuing violation doctrine might allow you to recover for the entire exposure period. This doctrine can be particularly valuable in catastrophic injury cases involving long-term exposure or repeated incidents of negligence.

If you believe an exception to California's statute of limitations might apply to your case, taking immediate action is essential. First, document everything related to when you discovered your injury, what you knew and when you knew it, and any communications with potential defendants. Medical records, journals documenting symptoms, photographs, and contemporaneous notes all help establish the timeline for delayed discovery claims.

Second, consult with an experienced personal injury attorney near you as soon as possible. Even if you believe an exception applies, don't wait until the last minute to seek legal advice. Investigating your claim, gathering evidence, identifying all responsible parties, and preparing a lawsuit all take time. Attorneys need adequate time to build a strong case and ensure all procedural requirements are met.

Third, preserve all evidence related to your injury and the circumstances surrounding it. This includes physical evidence, photographs, video footage, witness contact information, and all documents related to the incident. Evidence deteriorates over time—witnesses forget details, physical evidence is lost or destroyed, and documents are discarded. The sooner you begin preserving evidence, the stronger your case will be regardless of which statute of limitations deadline applies.

Even when a valid exception exists, certain actions can waive your right to rely on it. One common mistake is filing a lawsuit, then voluntarily dismissing it. In many cases, refiling after a voluntary dismissal doesn't allow you to invoke tolling provisions or exceptions that applied to the original filing. Another critical error is failing to properly plead the exception in your complaint. California courts require plaintiffs to specifically allege facts supporting any statute of limitations exception they're relying on.

Additionally, inconsistent statements about when you discovered your injury or what you knew can undermine delayed discovery claims. If you told your doctor one thing, an insurance adjuster another, and your attorney something different, defense lawyers will use these inconsistencies to argue you discovered your injury earlier than claimed. Consistency in your statements and documentation is crucial to successfully invoking statute of limitations exceptions.

At Hurt Advice, our experienced California personal injury attorneys understand the complexities of statute of limitations exceptions and how to successfully argue for extended deadlines when appropriate. We provide free consultations to evaluate your case and determine whether any statute of limitations exceptions might apply. If we take your case, we work on a contingency fee basis—you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. Don't let statute of limitations concerns prevent you from seeking the compensation you deserve—contact Hurt Advice today to discuss your options.