By DEMO Law Group  ·  MAY 27, 2026  ·  10 MIN READ

---

---

description: "In most California pedestrian injury cases, you have 2 years to file suit under CCP § 335.1, but claims involving a city, county, or state agency usually require a written government claim within 6 months under Gov. Code § 911.2."
author: "Cui Law Group"
date: "2026-05-26"

You usually have 2 years after a California pedestrian accident — unless a city is involved

The California pedestrian accident statute of limitations is usually 2 years from the date of injury under CCP § 335.1. But if a city, county, or state agency may be responsible, you often need to file a government claim within 6 months first.

CCP § 335.1: the default 2-year deadline for a pedestrian injury claim

Start here. In most California pedestrian injury cases, the basic deadline is simple: you usually have 2 years from the date of injury to file a lawsuit. That rule comes from Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, the standard limitations period for many bodily injury claims in California.

So if you were hit by a private driver, the working assumption is a 2-year clock. Not maybe. Not roughly. Usually 2 years. That is the baseline rule California courts and self-help materials point to for personal injury cases.

But a deadline is not just a date on a calendar. It shapes everything that follows. Miss it, and a valid claim can be barred before the court ever reaches fault, medical bills, or pain and suffering. That is why the phrase California pedestrian accident statute of limitations matters so much in real life: it is often the difference between having leverage and having no case to file.

Pedestrian claims usually fit into ordinary negligence law. Civil Code § 1714 provides the general duty of ordinary care. In plain terms, people are responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care, subject to the injured person’s own conduct. That means your case may involve both timing and fault from day one.

A few timing points matter. First, “2 years” usually means 2 years from the date of injury, not from the date you finish treatment. Second, if your incident is older, limited COVID-era tolling may matter because Emergency Rule 9 tolled many civil statutes from April 6, 2020 through October 1, 2020. Third, the court filing itself matters. In California, the standard personal injury complaint form is PLD-PI-001, and the case may be filed as a limited civil case if it is generally $35,000 or less, or as an unlimited civil case if it exceeds that amount.

Short version: if a private person or company caused the crash, think CCP § 335.1 and think fast.

Gov. Code § 911.2: why a city, county, or state defendant changes the timeline

Now the exception. And it is a big one.

If your pedestrian injury may involve a city, county, or state agency, the ordinary 2-year rule is not the first deadline you should focus on. Instead, you usually must comply with the Government Claims Act first. Under Government Code § 911.2, a claim for personal injury generally must be presented within 6 months.

That shorter deadline can come up in more situations than people expect. Maybe the driver was a city employee. Maybe a dangerous crosswalk, poor signal timing, missing warning signs, or roadway design played a role. Maybe the incident involved public transit or a government vehicle. Once a public entity may be involved, the timeline changes quickly.

This is where people get hurt twice: first in the crash, then by waiting too long. A public-entity claim is not the same as simply calling the city or filing an insurance claim. The administrative claim process has its own rules, and a later lawsuit usually comes only after that claim process is completed or rejected.

There is another wrinkle. Gov. Code §§ 835 and 830.6 can matter when the theory is dangerous public property or design immunity. And in Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023), the California Supreme Court explained that design immunity under § 830.6 does not automatically wipe out every failure-to-warn theory. That does not mean every roadway claim succeeds. It does mean public-entity cases often turn on very specific facts and very specific deadlines.

One more practical point: Government Code § 911.2 also mentions 1 year for certain other claims, but bodily injury claims are usually the 6-month category. For a pedestrian injury, that shorter period is the one people usually need to worry about.

So ask the hard question early: was a public entity involved in any meaningful way? If the answer might be yes, waiting for the full 2 years under CCP § 335.1 can be a costly mistake.

Vehicle Code § 21950 and comparative fault: when a pedestrian’s share of fault still allows recovery

Here is the next issue people worry about: “What if I was partly at fault?”

California does not use an all-or-nothing rule for most negligence claims. California follows pure comparative negligence, rooted in Civil Code § 1714 and recognized in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. That means your recovery can be reduced by your share of fault, but partial fault does not automatically bar recovery.

That matters in pedestrian cases because facts are rarely neat. Maybe you were in a marked crosswalk. Maybe it was an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Maybe you crossed outside a crosswalk. Maybe the driver says you stepped out too suddenly. These are common disputes, and California traffic rules sort them out by location and conduct.

Under Vehicle Code § 21950, drivers must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. But the statute does not give pedestrians a free pass to ignore danger. Pedestrians still have a duty to use due care for their own safety.

Outside a crosswalk, Vehicle Code § 21954 may shift some responsibility to the pedestrian, because a pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk generally must yield to vehicles close enough to be an immediate hazard. Vehicle Code § 21956 can also matter in certain roadway situations. Even then, drivers still owe a duty of due care. That is the key. Shared fault is possible. Zero driver fault is not automatic.

In practical terms, comparative fault changes value, not just liability. If a pedestrian is found 20% at fault, damages may be reduced by 20%. If the pedestrian is found 60% at fault, damages may be reduced by 60%. California’s rule is still “pure” comparative negligence, so fault reduces recovery by a percentage; it does not erase it just because the pedestrian made a mistake.

That is why evidence matters so much. Crosswalk position. Signal timing. Skid marks. Vehicle speed. Lighting. Video. Witness statements. Each one can change the percentage picture.

Civil Code § 1431.2: how damages are split in California pedestrian cases

Timing gets you into court. Fault helps decide responsibility. Damages decide what may be recoverable.

California generally allows both economic damages and noneconomic damages in pedestrian injury cases. Economic damages can include medical bills, lost earnings, and other measurable losses. Noneconomic damages can include pain and suffering. California courts’ self-help materials identify those categories as standard in personal injury cases.

And here is an important point people often miss: in ordinary California pedestrian cases, there is generally no blanket cap on personal injury damages. The bigger issue is not a statewide cap. It is how damages are allocated among defendants.

That is where Civil Code § 1431.2 comes in. Under that statute, noneconomic damages are generally several only, not joint. In plain English, each defendant is typically responsible for noneconomic damages only in proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault. Economic damages are treated differently.

Why does that matter? Picture a pedestrian case with multiple potentially responsible parties: a driver, an employer, and maybe a public entity tied to roadway conditions. Under Civil Code § 1431.2, the split for pain and suffering may not work the same way as the split for medical bills or lost income.

This section also connects back to comparative fault. If fault is divided among the pedestrian and several defendants, then allocation becomes a real mathematical issue. Not flashy. But real. And important.

A pedestrian who files on time under CCP § 335.1 may still pursue both economic and noneconomic damages if the facts support them. The deadlines do not create damages by themselves; they preserve the chance to seek them. That is a major difference.

CCP § 335.1 evidence and filing issues: what to preserve before the deadline runs

Deadlines are unforgiving. Evidence is fragile. Put those together, and early action matters.

Before the statute runs, preserve what you can. Start with the basics: collision report, incident report, photos of the scene, photos of injuries, names of witnesses, and all medical records. Medical proof often comes in through the business-records rule under Evidence Code § 1271, which is one reason organized records matter.

Video can disappear fast. Store footage from nearby businesses, transit systems, apartment buildings, or traffic-adjacent cameras may be overwritten in days or weeks. If electronic recordings may be used later, California Rule of Court 2.1040 can affect how they are presented, including transcript and duplicate-recording requirements in some situations. Early preservation is the simple move.

Then there is formal discovery. California civil cases commonly use interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, depositions, and subpoenas. Discovery responses are often due in 30 days, or 35 days depending on service method. In a limited civil case, DISC-015 ties to CCP § 96 and can be used to request identification of trial witnesses and evidence the other side intends to use.

Filing details matter too. The standard complaint form is PLD-PI-001. And the “limited” versus “unlimited” civil distinction can turn on whether the case is generally $35,000 or less. That classification affects procedure, even though it does not change the underlying injury itself.

What should you gather before the deadline expires?

• Medical records and bills
• Health insurance or lien information
• Wage loss records
• Photos of the vehicle, roadway, and injuries
• Witness names and contact details
• Any available surveillance or dashcam footage
• The police or incident report
• Communications with insurers or public entities

Simple point. Strong point. Do not wait until month 23 of a 2-year period to start hunting for evidence. And do not wait anywhere near 6 months if a public entity may be involved.

Most personal injury cases are handled on a contingency fee basis — meaning no fee unless we recover for you.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its facts, the parties involved, and the filing timeline that applies.

If you were hit while walking and you are trying to sort out the deadline, Cui Law Group handles pedestrian accident cases across California. The firm serves clients in English and also assists Chinese-speaking clients from offices in Irvine and San Jose, and may be able to help you understand whether the 2-year rule or the 6-month government-claim rule applies.

FAQ

Does California have a different statute of limitations for pedestrian accidents than for other personal injury claims?

Usually no. A pedestrian injury claim is generally treated as a personal injury negligence claim, so the default deadline is 2 years from the date of injury under CCP § 335.1. The major exception is when a public entity is involved, because Gov. Code § 911.2 usually requires a claim within 6 months first.

What if I was partly at fault for the pedestrian accident in California?

You may still recover damages. California follows pure comparative negligence under Civil Code § 1714 and Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, so your recovery is generally reduced by your percentage of fault rather than barred completely.

How long do I have to file if a public entity caused the pedestrian injury?

Usually much sooner than 2 years. If a city, county, or state agency may be responsible, you generally must present a written claim within 6 months under Government Code § 911.2 before filing suit later.

Can I still recover pain and suffering if the pedestrian accident claim is filed on time?

Yes, in many cases. California generally allows both economic damages and noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering, in personal injury cases. Under Civil Code § 1431.2, noneconomic damages are usually allocated according to each defendant’s share of fault.

What documents should I gather before the California pedestrian accident deadline expires?

Gather medical records, bills, wage-loss proof, photos, witness information, the collision or incident report, and any video footage. Medical records may later rely on Evidence Code § 1271 for foundation, and video preservation matters because Rule 2.1040 can affect later use of electronic recordings in court.

If you want clear next steps after a California pedestrian accident, contact Cui Law Group for a free consultation. A prompt review may help you identify the right deadline, preserve evidence, and avoid missing a claim window.

· · ·