Quick Answer: FedEx Ground Package System’s small directly registered fleet (32 vehicles) had the highest crash rate of the eight carrier registrations we analyzed, with 24 crashes, or 75 per 100 registered vehicles, over the past 24 months — more than 12 times the rate of J.B. Hunt (5.86), and roughly 30 times the rate of UPS, Amazon Logistics or FedEx Express. Because that rate rests on so few vehicles, it should be read with caution. DHL Express has the highest fatal-crash rate in the group at 0.21 per 100 vehicles. The findings come from a 2026 analysis of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) SAFER records by Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers.

Why we looked at delivery fleet safety

Home delivery has become a permanent part of American life. By some estimates, U.S. households now receive more than 60 million parcels every single day, and that volume keeps climbing with each holiday season. Every one of those packages travels the last mile in a truck or van that shares the road with commuters, cyclists and pedestrians — often on tight residential streets, on a clock, with a driver being measured on how fast the route gets finished.

Yet very little public reporting compares the safety records of the companies doing the delivering. Federal crash data exists, but it is scattered across individual carrier registrations and never presented as a like-for-like comparison.

So we pulled it together. Our firm has represented people injured in delivery truck accidents in Los Angeles for over 30 years, and the question clients ask most often is simple: how common is this? This study is our attempt to answer it with federal data rather than anecdotes.

Methodology

We collected records from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s for eight major U.S. delivery carriers, using each company’s primary USDOT registration. For each carrier we recorded:

• Power units — the number of registered trucks, vans and tractors
• Total crashes reported to FMCSA over the trailing 24 months (period ending August 2026)
• Injury crashes and fatal crashes within that total
• Vehicle and driver out-of-service rates from federal roadside inspections

Because the fleets range from a few dozen vehicles to well over 100,000, raw crash counts alone would simply reward the smallest companies. To make the comparison fair, we calculated crashes per 100 power units and used that rate to produce the final ranking. Injury and fatal crashes were normalized the same way. Rates for the smallest registrations (FedEx Ground, 32 units; OnTrac, 30 units; DHL, 481 units) rest on a handful of crashes and can swing sharply with a single incident.

One important limitation, which we discuss in detail below: several of these brands deliver most of their packages through independent contractors who hold their own USDOT numbers. The figures here reflect each company’s own registration, not the entire network of contractors operating under its logo.

The rankings: America’s most crash-prone delivery fleets

Source: FMCSA SAFER, 24-month period ending August 2026. Analysis by Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC.

Across all eight registrations combined, that is roughly 292,000 registered vehicles and 7,226 reported crashes in two years — an average of about 2.5 crashes per 100 trucks, or nearly ten reported crashes every day involving just these carriers’ directly registered fleets.

Key findings

1. FedEx Ground has by far the worst crash rate

For every 100 vehicles on FedEx Ground Package System’s registration, 75 were involved in a reported crash in the past two years, and 37.5 were involved in a crash that injured someone. No other carrier in the dataset comes within a factor of ten.

FedEx Ground’s roadside inspection record raises the same flag. Nearly one in five FedEx Ground trucks (19%) pulled over by federal inspectors were declared too unsafe to continue driving and ordered out of service on the spot.

The context matters here. FedEx Ground’s own USDOT registration lists only 32 power units because the division delivers almost entirely through contracted “independent service providers” who register their own vehicles separately. That means the 24 crashes on this registration are a small window into a much larger network — but it also means the vehicles FedEx Ground does directly register are crashing at a rate that should concern anyone sharing the road with them.

2. J.B. Hunt: the highest crash rate among the mega-fleets

J.B. Hunt, mainly an intermodal and truckload carrier that also runs a final-mile home-delivery business, is second overall, with 5.86 crashes per 100 vehicles — but unlike FedEx Ground, it reaches that rate across a fleet of more than 25,000 trucks covering over 1.6 billion miles a year. Over the study period, J.B. Hunt vehicles were involved in 1,482 crashes, including 495 injury crashes and 46 fatal crashes. Its fatal-crash rate (0.182 per 100 units) is the second-highest in the ranking and more than four times that of UPS.

3. OnTrac’s trucks fail inspections, even though its drivers don’t

Regional West Coast carrier OnTrac ranks third at 3.33 crashes per 100 vehicles, based on a single crash across a small direct registration. The more telling number is its inspection record: federal officials pulled 3 of every 15 OnTrac vehicles inspected (20%) off the road for safety violations — well above what clean-record carriers typically post. Its drivers, by contrast, passed all 18 driver inspections with zero violations, suggesting the problem is equipment and maintenance rather than driver conduct.

4. Spee-Dee: a regional carrier with a driver problem

Spee-Dee Delivery, which runs Midwest routes with about 560 vehicles, recorded 17 crashes, five of them involving injuries. Its driver out-of-service rate was among the highest in the ranking — meaning that when inspectors stopped a Spee-Dee driver, they were unusually likely to find a violation serious enough to end that driver’s shift.

5. Amazon Logistics rounds out the top five

Amazon’s directly registered fleet — roughly 15,000 vehicles and more than 42,000 drivers — was involved in 349 crashes in two years, including 124 injury crashes and 6 fatal crashes, for a rate of 2.29 per 100 units. As with FedEx Ground, this captures only part of the picture: thousands of Amazon Delivery Service Partners (DSPs) operate the familiar blue vans under their own separate USDOT registrations and are not included in this figure. We cover how that structure affects injury claims on our Amazon delivery accident page.

6. By sheer volume, FedEx Express and UPS dominate

Rates tell one story; raw numbers tell another. Federal Express Corp. (the FedEx Express air-and-ground division) reported 3,110 crashes in 24 months — including roughly 1,066 injury crashes and 79 fatal crashes — across the largest fleet in the study. UPS was close behind with 2,234 crashes, roughly 786 involving injuries and 49 fatal. Between them, these two carriers account for about 74% of every crash in the dataset. Their per-vehicle rates (2.25 and 1.99) are middle-of-the-pack, but that is small comfort to the thousands of people involved in those collisions each year.

7. DHL has the lowest crash rate — and the highest fatal-crash rate

DHL Express (USA) posted the best overall crash rate in the group at 1.87 per 100 vehicles. But among its nine reported crashes, one was fatal, giving DHL’s small U.S. fleet a fatal-crash rate of 0.208 per 100 units — the highest in the ranking and roughly four to five times the fatal-crash rate of UPS and Amazon Logistics.With a fleet of fewer than 500 vehicles, a single fatality moves that rate dramatically, but the outcome for the family involved is the same regardless of fleet size.

The contractor problem: why the real numbers are almost certainly worse

The most important caveat in this study is also its most important finding. Three of the biggest brands on the list — FedEx Ground, Amazon and, to a lesser extent, UPS through its surge contractors — deliver most of their packages through vehicles that are not on the parent company’s federal registration.

FedEx Ground contracts with thousands of independent service providers. Amazon’s DSP program comprises thousands of small delivery companies, each with its own USDOT number. When one of those vans causes a crash, the collision is logged under the contractor’s registration, not the brand’s. The result is that the safety record of the vehicle with the corporate logo on the side is spread across a scattered set of small carriers that no consumer, regulator or journalist can easily add up.

Steven M. Sweat, founding attorney of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, commented on the findings:

“A lot of these big delivery brands don’t directly employ most of their drivers. They use contracted service providers who operate their own trucks under separate registrations. That makes it harder to track the full safety picture, and it also splits accountability. However, one area where responsibility can’t be shared is that these companies put delivery drivers under enormous time pressure every day. Routes are planned around speed, and drivers know they’ll be evaluated on how fast they complete them. That kind of pressure raises risk on the road.”

What this means if you’re hit by a delivery vehicle in California

Delivery vehicle crashes are not like ordinary car accidents, for three reasons.

1. Identifying the right defendant is the first fight. Under California law, an employer is generally liable for an employee’s negligence committed within the scope of employment (the doctrine of respondeat superior). But when the driver works for a contractor, the delivery giant will argue it is not the employer at all. Whether a brand can be held responsible depends on the degree of control it exercised over the driver’s routes, schedules, vehicle and performance metrics — exactly the “time pressure” issues this study highlights. Claims may also be brought for negligent selection or retention of a contractor, or under federal motor carrier regulations that apply regardless of the label on the paperwork.

2. Federal safety rules create evidence. Because these fleets are regulated by the FMCSA, there is a paper trail that does not exist in a typical fender-bender: inspection reports, out-of-service orders, hours-of-service logs, telematics and route-timing data. An experienced truck accident attorney will send preservation demands for this evidence immediately, because delivery companies routinely overwrite it within weeks.

3. Comparative fault will be raised. California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, which means the carrier’s insurer will look for any way to shift a percentage of blame onto the injured person to reduce what it pays. Your recovery is reduced by your share of fault but not eliminated, even if you are found mostly at fault.

If you’ve been injured by a FedEx, UPS, Amazon or any other delivery vehicle in Southern California, you can reach our office 24 hours a day at 866-966-5240 for a free consultation. We handle every case on a contingency fee basis, in English or Spanish.

Frequently asked questions

Use this data

Journalists, researchers and safety advocates are welcome to use the findings, tables and charts from this study. When doing so, please credit Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers and link to https://www.victimslawyer.com. For the underlying data, interviews or a state-level breakdown, contact our office at 866-966-5240.

Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC is a plaintiff-side personal injury firm in West Los Angeles with over 30 years of experience representing people injured in commercial vehicle and delivery truck crashes throughout California. Recognized by Super Lawyers continuously since 2012. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

After a crash, getting your claim opened quickly matters — but if Farmers Insurance is involved, whether as the at-fault driver’s carrier or your own, the Farmers Insurance claims number is only the starting point. How you handle that first call, what you say, and what you sign all shape what your claim is ultimately worth.

This guide gives you the direct phone numbers, app and online steps, and claim-ID lookup methods you need to open and track a Farmers claim. It also explains what Farmers’ process is designed to do — and what their adjusters are trained not to volunteer — before you speak with them or sign anything.

At Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, we have represented California injury victims against the major auto insurers for over 30 years. If your injuries are serious, talk to us before accepting any offer or giving any statement.

What You Need Before Calling Farmers Insurance

Having the right information ready before you dial the Farmers Insurance claims number keeps your first report factual and limited to what you choose to share.

Your Farmers Policy Information

Have your policy number ready — it appears on your insurance card, your Farmers declarations page, or in your online account at farmers.com. Keep your driver’s license number and the VIN of the vehicle involved on hand as well. If the at-fault driver carries Farmers, gather their name, license plate, and policy number if you have it.

Accident Details

Write down the exact date, time, and location before you call — the specific street address or nearest intersection, not just a general area. Collect the police report number, license plate numbers for every vehicle, and the names and contact information for all drivers and witnesses. Photos of vehicle damage and the scene are important; describe what happened in simple, factual terms without guessing at fault or apologizing.

Medical Information

Seek medical attention right away after any accident, even if symptoms feel minor. Insurers routinely use gaps between the accident date and your first appointment to dispute that the crash caused your injuries. If you have already received treatment, have your provider’s name and contact information ready so the claim file reflects it from the start.

Step 1. Use the Right Farmers Insurance Claims Phone Number

Farmers operates a centralized 24/7 claims line that handles both first-party claims (you are the Farmers policyholder) and third-party claims (the at-fault driver carries Farmers). Have your policy number — or the other driver’s policy number — ready so the automated system can route your call.

The main Farmers Insurance claims number is 1-800-435-7764, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You can also start a claim online at farmers.com or through the Farmers mobile app. As with any insurer portal, use the online and app tools for administrative tasks — uploading the police report and photos — and consult an attorney before entering detailed descriptions of the accident or your injuries.

Step 2. Report a New Farmers Insurance Claim

Farmers offers three filing channels: phone, mobile app, and online. All three open the same claim file, but the principle is the same regardless of channel — control what you share.

Reporting by Phone

Call 1-800-435-7764 and follow the prompts to reach a claims representative. They will walk you through the basic accident details and open your file. You will receive a claim number before the call ends — write it down immediately, along with your adjuster’s name and direct contact information. Keep your account of events factual and brief.

Using the Farmers Mobile App

The Farmers mobile app lets you file a claim, upload photos directly from your phone, track status, and message your adjuster. It is convenient for documentation, but the same caution applies: upload evidence, but do not narrate detailed injury or fault descriptions before speaking with an attorney.

Filing Online at farmers.com

Log into your account at farmers.com and open the Claims section. The online form covers the same questions a phone representative would ask and creates a written record of what you reported. Review your answers before submitting.

Step 3. Find Your Farmers Claim Number and Track Your Claim

After you report, Farmers assigns a claim number you will reference in every future communication. Track your claim through any of these channels.

Where to Find Your Claim Number

• Check your email — Farmers sends a confirmation after filing with your claim number in the subject line and body.
• Log into farmers.com or the Farmers app and open the Claims section — your claim number, assigned adjuster, and status appear there.
• Check any written correspondence from Farmers — claim numbers appear on all letters, estimates, and settlement documents.
• Call 1-800-435-7764 with your policy number and the accident date and a representative can retrieve it.

Tracking Your Claim Status

Log into farmers.com or the app to view status, your adjuster’s contact information, and any pending documentation requests. For direct updates, call 1-800-435-7764 with your claim number, or contact your assigned adjuster.

Step 4. Handle Common Farmers Insurance Claim Problems

When Farmers Delays or Denies Your Claim

If Farmers delays or denies your claim, request a written explanation identifying the specific policy provision they rely on. California’s Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations require an insurer to acknowledge a claim within 15 days and to accept or deny coverage within 40 days of receiving all requested documentation. If Farmers misses those timelines, you can file a complaint with the California Department of Insurance at 800-927-4357. A denial is frequently the start of a negotiation, not the end of your claim.

When You Cannot Reach Your Adjuster

Call 1-800-435-7764 and request a supervisor callback, explaining that you have left messages without a response, and provide your claim number. Follow up in writing by email, copying the supervisor if you have their contact. Creating a paper trail often speeds up a response.

Handling a Low Settlement Offer

When Farmers makes an offer, the first figure is typically below the actual value of the claim. Document every expense — medical bills, prescriptions, therapy, lost wages, and out-of-pocket costs — and counter with a specific number supported by that documentation rather than accepting the first offer. For a breakdown of the tactics adjusters use to justify low offers and how to counter them, see Filing a Farmers Insurance Claim: What the Adjuster Won’t Tell You.

What Farmers Insurance Won’t Tell You After a California Accident

These are facts every California injury victim dealing with Farmers has a right to know:

• You are not required to give a recorded statement on a third-party claim. Declining protects you from having an early, off-hand remark used against you later.
• A first offer is rarely a final offer. Insurers routinely open low and move once a claim is documented and supported.
• A pre-existing condition does not eliminate your right to compensation. Under California’s eggshell-plaintiff rule, an insurer is responsible for any aggravation of a prior condition the crash caused.
• If the at-fault Farmers driver’s policy limits are too low to cover your injuries, your own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage may bridge the gap.
• You have the right to choose your own licensed repair shop. Farmers may recommend facilities, but California law does not require you to use them.
• Most personal injury attorneys work on contingency — no upfront fees, and nothing owed unless you recover.

Related Resources on Farmers Insurance and California Claims

• Filing a Farmers Insurance Claim: What the Adjuster Won’t Tell You — The adjuster tactics and stage-by-stage claims process explained.
• Farmers Insurance Claims in California — Our practice-area page on handling Farmers injury claims.
• California Car Insurance Accident Disputes — How Farmers, State Farm, GEICO, Allstate, Mercury, and Progressive handle California claims.
• Worst Auto Insurance Companies in California (2026) — How the major carriers rank on CDI and NAIC complaint data.
• Uninsured Motorist Attorney Los Angeles — When the at-fault driver’s limits are insufficient, UM/UIM may bridge the gap.
• Los Angeles Car Accident Attorneys — Our core California auto accident practice-area page.

Frequently Asked Questions: Farmers Insurance Claims Number and Claims Process

About the Author

Steven M. Sweat is the founding attorney of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, serving injury victims throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California for over 30 years. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers annually since 2012, holds an Avvo 10.0 rating, and is a member of the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and the National Trial Lawyers Top 100. His firm handles automobile, motorcycle, and truck accidents, traumatic brain injuries, premises liability, and wrongful death cases on a contingency-fee basis.

Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC  |  11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90064  |  866-966-5240

Most California injury claimants are told that settlement values are calculated based on “the facts of the case” and “the severity of injuries.” That description is true the way “the weather is calculated based on temperature” is true. It captures one input and ignores the operating system.

After over 30 years representing injury victims and watching adjusters work claims from the other side of the table, I can tell you that California personal injury settlements are produced by a specific, repeatable, six-step process. Each step has inputs the adjuster controls, inputs the claimant controls, and inputs an attorney controls. The math is not mysterious. It is also not fair. The system is engineered to produce the lowest defensible offer, and “defensible” means defensible against a claimant who cannot or will not file a lawsuit.

This guide opens the black box. It walks through the actual six-step process adjusters apply to California personal injury claims, the automated valuation software they run during step four, the policy-limit and reserve-setting logic that constrains every offer, and — critically — the specific levers a plaintiff’s attorney pulls at each step to move the number. By the end you will understand exactly what the adjuster is calculating, why their offer is what it is, and what would have to happen for it to change.

What Adjusters Are Actually Optimizing For

Before stepping into the six-step process, understand the framing. Adjusters are not paid to pay fair value on California injury claims. They are paid to close files at the lowest amount that does not produce a lawsuit, a regulatory complaint, or a bad-faith verdict. That is a different optimization function from “fair compensation,” and the difference shows up in every input to every calculation.

Adjuster compensation, in most major California carriers, is tied to cost-per-claim metrics, claim closure speed, and “leakage” management (the carrier’s term for any payout above the algorithmic baseline). Performance reviews and bonuses correlate with savings, not with claimant satisfaction. This is not pejorative — it is structural. Carriers are publicly traded or large mutual entities whose financial performance depends on collecting premiums and minimizing payouts. The adjuster on the phone is professional, courteous, and on the clock for one of those entities.

The single fact that determines what the adjuster offers, more than any other, is the carrier’s calculated cost of the alternative. If the adjuster believes a fair settlement is $50,000 and the cost of defending a lawsuit through trial is $150,000, the offer will gravitate toward $50,000. If the adjuster believes the claimant cannot or will not file suit, the offer will be calibrated to whatever the claimant might accept under financial pressure — frequently $5,000–$15,000 on the same case. The math problem the adjuster is solving is not “what is this case worth?” It is “what is the smallest number that closes this file without creating bigger costs?”

The 6-Step California Adjuster Calculation

Every California auto, premises, or general-liability injury claim runs through some version of the following six steps. The steps occur roughly in order, though they overlap, and the inputs from one step constrain the next.

Step 1 — Coverage Verification and Policy-Limit Identification

The first action on any new claim is to confirm the policy is in force on the date of loss, identify the applicable coverage limits, and determine whether any exclusions apply. The bodily injury limit is the absolute ceiling on what the carrier will pay on this claim under this policy — nothing the adjuster does in steps two through six can move past it without separate excess coverage.

California’s minimum auto liability is currently $30,000 per person / $60,000 per accident. Many California drivers carry only the statutory minimum. Commercial trucks must carry higher minimums (generally $750,000 for most freight carriers under California Vehicle Code § 34631.5 and federal rules, more for hazardous materials), many carry $1,000,000 or more, and rideshare companies carry $1,000,000 during trips under California’s TNC framework. The difference between a $30,000 ceiling and a $1,000,000 ceiling fundamentally reshapes every subsequent calculation.

What the attorney does at this step: Identifies every layer of available coverage — primary, excess, umbrella, MedPay, the claimant’s own UM/UIM under California Insurance Code § 11580.2, and any third-party defendant coverage (employer respondeat superior, dram shop, premises GL, product manufacturer). Most unrepresented claimants identify only the primary policy and stop there. Cases that look like $15,000 cases routinely become $200,000+ cases when all coverage layers are mapped.

Step 2 — Liability Analysis Under California Pure Comparative Fault

Once coverage is confirmed, the adjuster determines what percentage of fault is attributable to each party. California is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804) — every percentage point of fault attributed to the claimant proportionally reduces the offer.

The adjuster’s liability analysis draws from the police report, recorded statements, witness statements, vehicle damage patterns, intersection geometry, and any available video. Adjusters are trained to identify any plausible argument that the claimant shares fault. Following distance, speed, lane position, distraction, and right-of-way compliance are all examined for fault-sharing arguments. Even in clear-liability cases, adjusters routinely attribute 10–40% comparative fault to the claimant as an opening position.

What the attorney does at this step: Subpoenas underlying evidence (cell phone records that may show distracted driving, surveillance footage that may show speed or red-light violation, employer records that may establish duty of care). Identifies traffic-code violations by the at-fault driver that establish negligence per se under California Evidence Code § 669. Frames the case under proper CACI jury instructions. In real practice, comparative fault attributions of 30–40% by the carrier reduce to 0–10% by the time of settlement.

Step 3 — Economic Damages Calculation

Step three is where automated valuation software begins to dominate the calculation. The adjuster compiles the claimant’s economic damages in three categories:

(a) Past medical specials

Under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, recovery of past medical expenses in California is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred — not the full billed amount. A $50,000 hospital bill that health insurance settled for $15,000 produces $15,000 in recoverable past medicals. The Howell rule benefits insurers and constrains the gross recovery, and under Corenbaum v. Lakeside Hospital (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308 the unpaid billed amounts are also generally not admissible to prove pain and suffering or future medical costs.

(b) Lost wages and lost earning capacity

Past lost wages are documented through pay stubs, tax returns, and employer statements — fairly straightforward. Lost earning capacity is the much larger and more contested category: the projected future income the claimant cannot earn because of the injury. For a 35-year-old with a permanent partial disability, the lifetime lost earning capacity can dwarf the past medical bills. Adjusters do not volunteer to include this number unless it is documented and presented to them by a qualified economist with proper work-life expectancy and discount-rate assumptions. Unrepresented claimants almost universally fail to produce that documentation.

(c) Future medical expenses

Documented through a life-care plan prepared by a qualified life-care planner, projecting future surgeries, therapies, medications, durable medical equipment, and home modifications over the claimant’s life expectancy. This is sophisticated work that adjusters routinely discount or ignore when no plan is in the file. Cases that look like $100,000 cases on past medicals alone become $1,000,000+ cases when a proper life-care plan is in evidence.

What the attorney does at this step: Retains a forensic economist for lost earning capacity, a life-care planner for future medical expenses, and treating-physician opinions on permanency and prognosis. Builds the economic damages file the adjuster’s algorithm cannot ignore.

Step 4 — Non-Economic Damages and the Multiplier Method

Non-economic damages — pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium — are subjective by definition. California has no statutory cap on non-economic damages in ordinary personal injury cases (the medical malpractice cap under MICRA is a separate framework). Adjusters apply two methods, sometimes in combination:

Multiplier method

Multiply the past medical specials (Howell-limited) by a factor between 1.5x and 5x, depending on injury severity, treatment intensity, surgical/non-surgical status, permanency, and age. Soft-tissue injuries with no surgery typically draw 1.5x–2x. Surgical orthopedic cases draw 3x–4x. Catastrophic injuries with permanent functional loss draw 4x–5x or higher in jury verdicts. The multiplier the adjuster applies is almost always toward the bottom of the applicable range when the claimant is unrepresented.

Per-diem method

Assign a daily rate (commonly $100–$300/day depending on severity) and multiply by the number of days from injury to maximum medical improvement. For longer-recovery cases this method can produce higher non-economic damages than the multiplier method, particularly where treatment extends 12+ months.

Range table for soft-tissue and surgical California cases:

The ranges above are illustrative composites drawn from California claim experience. Individual cases vary based on facts, evidence, venue, and defendant identity. They are not promises about any specific case.

Step 5 — Automated Valuation Software

By the time the adjuster reaches step five, much of the math has already been performed by software. The dominant systems in the California auto insurance industry include:

• Colossus (developed by Continuum and later owned by Computer Sciences Corporation, now part of DXC Technology) — the original and most widely deployed automated bodily injury valuation system. Used by Allstate, Auto Club, GEICO, Farmers, and other major California carriers.
• Claims IQ — Mitchell International’s competing valuation system, used by Liberty Mutual, Progressive, and others.
• ClaimAdvisor / Claim Outcome Advisor — used by various smaller carriers.

These systems work by ingesting injury codes (ICD-10), treatment data, diagnostic findings, and the claimant’s demographic and employment data, then matching against a database of historical settlement outcomes for similar claims. The output is a recommended settlement range. The carrier configures the system’s parameters — which is where the cost-containment levers live.

Soft-tissue injuries without positive imaging findings (cervical strains, lumbar strains, shoulder strains without visible tears) are the injury category most systematically undervalued by these systems. They are coded as “subjective” and receive disproportionately low scores. Allstate’s Colossus configuration was the subject of a multi-state National Association of Insurance Commissioners investigation that resulted in a $10 million settlement in 2010, with allegations that the company manipulated its software parameters to produce systematically lower offers.

What the attorney does at this step: Builds a documented demand package that the system cannot easily process algorithmically. Treating physician narrative reports, diagnostic imaging with detailed radiologist findings, specialist consultations, functional capacity evaluations, and detailed pain-and-impact narratives all force the file out of pure algorithmic processing and into individual adjuster review. Attorneys experienced with specific carriers know which inputs move which systems.

For carrier-specific detail on how each major California insurer applies its valuation software, see: Filing an Allstate Insurance Claim After a Car Accident in California, Filing a GEICO Auto Accident Claim in California, and Filing an AAA / Auto Club Injury Claim in California.

Step 6 — Reserve Setting and Tiered Settlement Authority

The final step is internal: the adjuster sets a “reserve” — the amount the carrier believes the claim will ultimately cost — and identifies the settlement-authority tier required to close at the projected number. Both have downstream consequences for what the claimant actually sees.

Reserve setting is partially regulatory (California Insurance Code requires reasonable reserves) and partially strategic (low reserves preserve adjuster latitude on offers; high reserves trigger management review). Reserves on unrepresented files are routinely set lower than represented files because the carrier’s expected exit cost is lower.

Tiered settlement authority is the more consequential part. Major California carriers route claims through adjusters with different levels of authority. A junior adjuster handling a non-represented claim may have authority up to $25,000–$50,000. A senior adjuster may have authority up to $250,000. Authority above that level requires committee review or home-office approval. Progressive’s tiered system is documented; Allstate, GEICO, and others operate similar structures. The adjuster talking to an unrepresented claimant is structurally limited in what they can offer regardless of the case’s actual value.

What the attorney does at this step: An attorney’s letterhead alone routes the file to a more senior adjuster with broader authority — frequently in the range of 2x–4x what the prior adjuster could offer. Once a lawsuit is filed, the file moves to defense counsel and an even more senior claims supervisor with full authority. The escalation is not about merit; it is about institutional process that responds to who is on the other side.

How Plaintiff’s Attorneys Move Every Number

The six-step process is the same for represented and unrepresented claimants. The numbers it produces can be very different. A 1999 Insurance Research Council survey found that represented claimants received total payments about 3.5 times higher, on average, before attorney’s fees, though they also tended to have more serious injuries. The reason representation matters is that it moves the inputs to every step.

How the Math Plays Out: Three California Examples

The same six-step process produces dramatically different numbers depending on which inputs are documented and who is presenting them. The examples below are hypothetical, simplified illustrations of the mechanics, not actual cases or results.

Example A — Rear-End Collision, Whiplash, Chiropractic Treatment

Facts: Stopped at a red light, rear-ended at moderate speed. Cervical and lumbar strain. 12 weeks of chiropractic treatment, $4,200 in billed charges (Howell-limited to $2,400 actually paid). No surgery. No missed work beyond a week. At-fault carrier: $50,000 BI policy.

Adjuster calculation, unrepresented: Past medical (Howell) $2,400 + non-economic at 1.5x multiplier ($3,600) + lost wages $800 = $6,800 baseline. Reduced 20% for asserted comparative fault. Final offer: $5,500.

Adjuster calculation, represented: Past medical $2,400 + non-economic at 2.5x multiplier ($6,000) + lost wages $1,200 + minor future-care reserve $1,000 = $10,600 baseline. Comparative fault challenged successfully — reduced to 0%. Senior adjuster authority.

Example B — Disc Herniation Requiring Surgery

Facts: T-bone collision. C5-C6 disc herniation. Six months of conservative treatment, then anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Total medical billing $135,000 (Howell-limited to $48,000 actually paid). Six weeks missed work, modified-duty for two months. Permanent partial disability with lifting restrictions. At-fault carrier: $250,000 BI policy.

Adjuster calculation, unrepresented: Past medical (Howell) $48,000 + non-economic at 2x multiplier ($96,000) + lost wages $14,000 = $158,000 baseline. Adjuster offers $85,000 with 25% comparative fault asserted, claiming “pre-existing degenerative changes.” Final offer absent escalation: $85,000.

Adjuster calculation, represented: Past medical $48,000 + non-economic at 4x multiplier ($192,000) + lost wages $18,000 + future medical via life-care plan $35,000 + lost earning capacity (modified work permanently, economist report) $80,000 = $373,000 baseline. Comparative fault disputed and resolved at 0%. Pre-existing argument neutralized via eggshell-plaintiff framing. Policy-limits demand triggers full $250,000 settlement, plus an underinsured motorist claim under the claimant’s own policy if its limits exceed $250,000 (UIM is reduced by the amount the at-fault insurer pays, and California does not allow stacking).

Example C — Catastrophic Brain Injury, Commercial Vehicle

Facts: Commercial delivery van collision. Moderate-to-severe TBI with permanent cognitive deficits. Inpatient rehab. Cannot return to prior occupation. 35-year-old claimant with 32 years of work-life expectancy at time of injury. Total medical billing exceeds $500,000. Defendant: commercial trucking company with $2,000,000 primary + $5,000,000 excess coverage.

Adjuster calculation, unrepresented: Past medical (Howell-limited) $185,000 + non-economic at 2.5x multiplier ($463,000) + lost wages $50,000 = $698,000 baseline. Adjuster offers $400,000 noting “policy-limits issue” and “causation questions on cognitive symptoms.” Unrepresented claimant accepts to cover surgery debts.

Adjuster calculation, represented: Past medical $185,000 + non-economic at 5x multiplier ($925,000) + lost wages $50,000 + future medical via life-care plan $1,200,000 + lost earning capacity over 32 years per economist $2,400,000 = $4,760,000 baseline. Primary $2M policy tendered after policy-limits demand triggers bad-faith exposure. Excess $5M policy negotiated to partial tender.

Note on the numbers: The figures above are hypothetical illustrations. Individual cases vary based on facts, evidence, venue, and defendant identity. They are not promises about any specific case. For case-specific valuation see

How Much Is My Personal Injury Case Worth in California? or call us directly.

What Claimants Can Do to Move Every Number Themselves

Even before retaining counsel, certain actions during the active claim period materially improve the inputs to the adjuster’s calculation. Each item below is something the claimant can control:

• Seek prompt and consistent medical care. Treatment gaps are the single largest weapon adjusters use to reduce non-economic multipliers. Continuous, documented care produces stronger valuations.
• Document daily impact. A daily journal of pain levels, sleep disruption, missed activities, and emotional state produces contemporaneous evidence the adjuster’s algorithm cannot easily dismiss.
• Photograph everything. Visible injuries, vehicle damage, the accident scene, and any progression of bruising or swelling over days. Visual documentation moves multipliers.
• Save every receipt. Out-of-pocket expenses for medications, durable medical equipment, transportation to appointments, prescription co-pays, and modifications to home or vehicle all add to economic damages.
• Document lost wages thoroughly. Pay stubs, employer statements confirming missed hours, and tax returns establishing your annual income baseline.
• Do not give a recorded statement to the at-fault carrier without attorney consultation. See: Should I Give Insurance a Statement Before Hiring a Lawyer?
• Stay off social media regarding the accident or your activities. See: Should I Post About My Personal Injury Case on Social Media?
• Reach maximum medical improvement before considering any settlement. Settling during active treatment forces you to guess at future medical needs and adjusters never compensate for expenses you cannot prove.

Frequently Asked Questions

Bottom Line

California injury settlements are not produced by intuition or by abstract assessments of “what the case is worth.” They are produced by a six-step calculation that runs through coverage, liability, economic damages, non-economic damages, automated software, and reserve/authority logic. Every step has inputs the carrier controls, inputs the claimant controls, and inputs an attorney controls. The numbers move dramatically depending on who controls which inputs.

The carrier’s offer is not the case’s value. It is the smallest number that closes the file given the inputs as currently documented. Documenting better inputs — through medical records, expert testimony, life-care plans, economist reports, and policy-limits demand letters — changes the offer. So does the institutional reality that an attorney’s involvement routes the file to senior adjusters with materially broader settlement authority.

The free consultation costs nothing and produces specific information: which calculation step is currently driving your offer, which inputs are missing, and what the realistic settlement range is once those inputs are corrected. There is no economic case for not having that conversation before accepting any offer.

About the Author

Steven M. Sweat is the founding attorney of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, serving injury victims throughout Los Angeles County and Southern California for over 30 years. He has been recognized by Super Lawyers consecutively since 2012, holds an Avvo 10.0 rating, and is a member of the National Trial Lawyers Top 100 and the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum. His firm handles automobile accidents, motorcycle collisions, truck accidents, traumatic brain injuries, premises liability, and wrongful death cases on a strict contingency fee basis. The firm is bilingual in English and Spanish and is located at 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90064.

Related Reading

• Will I Get Less Money If I Hire a Personal Injury Lawyer in California?
• Should I Settle My California Injury Claim Myself or Hire a Lawyer?
• Why Did the Insurance Adjuster Deny My California Personal Injury Claim?
• How Much Is My Personal Injury Case Worth in California?
• Settlement Value of California Personal Injury Claims
• How Do You Calculate Pain and Suffering Damages?
• Timeline of a Personal Injury Case in California

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about California personal injury law and is not legal advice. Outcomes vary by case. Examples are illustrative composites and not promises of any specific result. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Consult a licensed California attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.

If you or a loved one has been hurt due to someone else’s negligence, you deserve to know exactly what to expect — from the moment of injury through trial and beyond. This guide walks you through each phase of a California personal injury case, grounded in the actual statutes, court rules, jury instructions, and case law that govern your rights.

Stage 1: The Injury Occurs

Every personal injury case begins with a harmful event — a car crash, a slip and fall, a defective product, or another act of negligence. From the moment of injury, the law is already at work, and understanding its foundational principles is essential.

The Core Legal Duty: California Civil Code § 1714 establishes the bedrock rule: every person is responsible not only for the results of their willful acts, but also for injury caused to another by their want of ordinary care or skill. This general duty of reasonable care underlies virtually every personal injury claim in the state.

The Four Elements: California juries are instructed pursuant to CACI No. 400 that a plaintiff must prove four essential elements to establish negligence: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) that the defendant breached that duty; (3) that the breach was a substantial factor in causing harm; and (4) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. The California Supreme Court articulated these elements in Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917, holding that the elements of negligence are a legal duty to use due care, a breach of such duty, and the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.

The question of duty is determined by the court as a matter of law; breach and causation are for the jury. This interplay between judicial and jury function is fundamental to how negligence cases are tried in California.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 (general duty of reasonable care)
• CACI (Quasi-Primary): CACI No. 400 — Negligence: Essential Factual Elements (duty, breach, causation, damages); approved by Judicial Council per Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e)
• Case Law: Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917 (four-element formulation of negligence)

Stage 2: Medical Treatment & Investigation

Immediately following an injury, your most important obligation is to your health. Seek medical attention right away — not only to protect your well-being, but because gaps in medical treatment can be used against you by insurance companies and defense counsel.

Preserving Evidence: During this stage, your attorney will be simultaneously investigating the incident: gathering police reports, accident scene photographs, witness statements, surveillance footage, and any physical evidence. In catastrophic cases, experts may be retained to reconstruct the accident, analyze defective products, or document conditions at a premises.

Medical Documentation: Every office visit, diagnostic test, prescription, and therapy session creates the medical record that forms the backbone of your damages case. Continuity of care is critical — treating consistently with your doctors demonstrates that your injuries are genuine and ongoing.

Practical Tip: Never post about your accident, injuries, or daily activities on social media. Defense counsel routinely monitors plaintiffs’ social media accounts and will use any inconsistency against you at deposition and at trial.

This pre-litigation investigation phase sets the foundation for everything that follows. A thorough investigation at this stage can mean the difference between a strong case and one that collapses under scrutiny.

Stage 3: Pre-Litigation — The Demand Phase

Before a lawsuit is ever filed, most personal injury cases go through a demand phase — an opportunity to resolve your claim without the time and expense of litigation. Your attorney will compile a comprehensive demand package that includes medical records, bills, lost wage documentation, and a detailed narrative of liability and damages.

Dealing with Insurance: California law requires that insurance companies conduct fair claim investigations and respond to demands in good faith. If a defendant’s insurer refuses to engage reasonably or low-balls your claim, litigation becomes necessary.

Mediation: Many cases settle at this stage, often through informal negotiation or private mediation. Mediation is a voluntary, confidential process where a neutral mediator assists the parties in reaching resolution. Statements made in mediation are confidential and generally inadmissible under California Evidence Code §§ 1115–1128.

Government Defendants: If your injury was caused by a government agency — a city, county, the State of California, or any public entity — different and far more urgent rules apply. Under California Government Code § 911.2, you must file a government tort claim within six (6) months of the incident before you may sue. Failure to comply with this mandatory prerequisite generally results in a permanent bar of your claim.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 (6-month deadline to file government tort claim); Cal. Gov. Code §§ 945.4, 950.2 (claim presentation as prerequisite to lawsuit); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1115–1128 (mediation confidentiality)

Stage 4: Filing the Lawsuit

If pre-litigation efforts fail, the next step is filing a Complaint in the appropriate California Superior Court. The Complaint formally identifies the parties, sets forth the causes of action (e.g., negligence, premises liability, products liability), and states the relief sought.

Statute of Limitations — The Critical Deadline: Time is the single most unforgiving constraint in personal injury law. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, a plaintiff must bring an action for personal injury within two (2) years from the date of injury. Miss this deadline — for any reason — and your claim is forever barred, regardless of its merit.

Important Exceptions and Tolling:

• Minors: If the injured person is under 18, the statute is tolled until their 18th birthday, after which they have two additional years (CCP § 352(a)).
• Government defendants: The deadline to file a government claim is six months; the deadline to file suit after written notice of claim rejection is six months (Gov. Code § 945.6).
• Delayed discovery: The clock may be extended when a plaintiff could not reasonably have discovered the injury — common in toxic exposure and latent-injury cases.

Service of Process: After filing, the defendant must be formally served with the Summons and Complaint. The defendant generally has 30 days to respond after proper service.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: CCP § 335.1 (2-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death); CCP § 352(a) (tolling for minors); Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 (6-month government claim deadline); CCP § 474 (Doe defendant provisions / relation-back doctrine.

Stage 5: The Discovery Phase

Discovery is the formal, court-supervised process by which each side investigates the other’s evidence, witnesses, and legal theories. In California, the Civil Discovery Act (CCP §§ 2016.010–2036.050) governs this phase comprehensively. Discovery typically runs from the filing of the lawsuit through 30 days before trial.

Written Interrogatories (CCP §§ 2030.010 et seq.): Each side may serve written questions that the other must answer under oath within 30 days. Parties are generally limited to 35 specially prepared interrogatories per set absent a supporting declaration of necessity (CCP § 2030.030).

Requests for Production (CCP §§ 2031.010 et seq.): Document demands require the opposing party to produce relevant documents, electronically stored information (ESI), and tangible items. Responses are due within 30 days. This is how medical records, incident reports, corporate policies, vehicle data, and insurance policies are obtained.

Depositions (CCP §§ 2025.010 et seq.): Depositions are sworn, out-of-court oral examinations of witnesses, taken before a certified reporter. The plaintiff will be deposed, key witnesses will be deposed, and the defendant will be deposed. Expert witnesses will also be deposed after designation.

Requests for Admissions (CCP §§ 2033.010 et seq.): RFAs ask the opposing party to formally admit or deny specific facts, legal conclusions, or document authenticity. Admissions are binding and streamline trial by removing undisputed issues from contention.

Independent Medical Examinations (CCP § 2032.220): Defendants are typically entitled to have the plaintiff examined by their own physician. The results of this defense medical exam often become a central battleground at trial.

Expert Witnesses: Expert witness demands must be exchanged 70 days before trial; designations are due 50 days before trial (CCP §§ 2034.220–2034.230). Common experts include accident reconstructionists, biomechanical engineers, treating physicians, and vocational rehabilitation specialists.

Discovery Cutoff: In California, discovery generally closes 30 days before trial, and motions to compel must be heard no later than 15 days before trial (CCP § 2024.020). Failure to timely conduct discovery can result in waiver of critical evidence.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law — California Civil Discovery Act: CCP § 2025.010 et seq. (depositions); CCP § 2030.010 et seq. (interrogatories; 30-day response; 35-interrogatory limit); CCP § 2031.010 et seq. (document demands; 30-day response); CCP § 2033.010 et seq. (requests for admission); CCP § 2032.220 (defense independent medical examination); CCP §§ 2034.220–2034.230 (expert witness designation deadlines); CCP § 2024.020 (30-day discovery cutoff before trial)

Stage 6: Mediation & Settlement Negotiations

Most litigated personal injury cases in California do not end with a verdict — they end in a conference room. Once discovery has developed the evidence and both sides can value the case realistically, the parties typically attend private mediation: a confidential, non-binding negotiation conducted with a neutral mediator, usually a retired judge or veteran trial attorney, who shuttles between the parties in private caucuses to close the gap between demand and offer.

Confidentiality Is the Engine: Everything said at mediation is protected. Under California Evidence Code § 1119, mediation communications are inadmissible and shielded from discovery in any later proceeding — which is precisely what allows both sides to speak frankly about the strengths and weaknesses of their cases. California courts enforce this privilege strictly.

Non-Binding Process, Binding Result: The mediator has no power to force a settlement. But a written agreement signed at mediation that satisfies the Evidence Code’s requirements is fully enforceable — which is why experienced counsel never leaves a successful mediation without a signed term sheet, however late the hour.

In practice, mediation is the single most important day in the life of a typical litigated injury case — it is where most cases that survive discovery actually resolve, and cases that do not settle in the room frequently settle within days by way of a mediator’s proposal. For a complete walkthrough of the day — the briefs, the caucuses, brackets, the mediator’s proposal, and how to prepare — see our full guide to what happens at personal injury mediation in California.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1115–1128 (mediation confidentiality scheme); Cal. Evid. Code § 1119 (inadmissibility of mediation communications); Cal. Evid. Code § 1123 (requirements for enforceable written settlement reached at mediation)

Stage 7: Pre-Trial Motions

As the trial date approaches, both parties have the opportunity to shape the legal landscape through pre-trial motions. These motions can dramatically narrow the issues, exclude damaging evidence, or — in some cases — resolve the entire case before a jury ever hears it.

Motion for Summary Judgment (CCP § 437c): A defendant may move for summary judgment, arguing there is no triable issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff must oppose with evidence creating a genuine dispute of fact.

Motions in Limine: These are pre-trial motions to exclude or limit specific evidence at trial. Common targets in personal injury cases include prior medical history, social media posts, hearsay statements, and unqualified expert testimony. They are typically heard at the final status conference or just before trial begins.

Mandatory Settlement Conference (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1380): The Court can order a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) before trial. Trial counsel and the parties themselves — with full authority to settle — must personally attend. Each party must submit a written MSC statement no later than five court days before the conference. Many cases resolve at the MSC.

Section 998 Offers to Compromise (CCP § 998): This powerful statutory tool allows either party to make a formal offer of judgment. If the offeree rejects the 998 offer and fails to obtain a more favorable result at trial, the rejecting party loses the right to post-offer costs and may be required to pay the offering party’s expert-witness fees. In Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2025), the California Supreme Court held that CCP § 998 cost-shifting applies even to pre-trial stipulated settlements less favorable than a prior 998 offer. Section 998 offers must be made at least 10 days before trial and remain open for 30 days (or until trial, whichever is sooner).

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: CCP § 437c (motion for summary judgment / summary adjudication); CCP § 998 (offer to compromise / cost-shifting); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1380 (mandatory settlement conference)
• Case Law: Madrigal v. Hyundai Motor America (2025) [Cal. Supreme Court] — CCP § 998 cost-shifting applies to pre-trial stipulated settlements less favorable than a prior 998 offer.

Stage 8: Trial

If the case has not settled, it proceeds to trial. California personal injury trials are typically jury trials, though the parties may stipulate to a bench trial. The trial process consists of: jury selection (voir dire), opening statements, presentation of evidence and witnesses, closing arguments, and jury deliberation.

Jury Instructions — CACI: Before the jury deliberates, the judge instructs them on the law using California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). Under California Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e), use of the Judicial Council’s CACI instructions is strongly encouraged and constitutes the standard for California civil trials. In a negligence case, the jury will receive CACI No. 400 (negligence elements), CACI No. 430 (causation — substantial factor), and various damages instructions.

Burden of Proof: The plaintiff bears the burden of proving each element of negligence by a preponderance of the evidence — meaning it is more likely true than not. CACI No. 200 instructs the jury on this standard. Unlike criminal cases, the standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence Presentation: Both sides present witnesses, medical experts, accident reconstructionists, and other evidence. The plaintiff’s treating physicians typically testify about the nature and extent of injuries, causation, and future medical needs. Defense experts challenge these opinions, often arguing that injuries are pre-existing, exaggerated, or unrelated to the incident.

Controlling Authority:

• CACI (Quasi-Primary): CACI No. 200 — Preponderance of the Evidence; CACI No. 400 — Negligence: Essential Factual Elements; CACI No. 430 — Causation: Substantial Factor; CACI No. 3900 series — Compensatory Damages
• Primary Law: Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.1050(e) (use of Judicial Council instructions strongly encouraged); Cal. Evid. Code §§ 500–522 (burden of proof).

Stage 9: Verdict & Damages

After deliberation, the jury returns a verdict. In California, a three-fourths jury vote (9 of 12 jurors) is sufficient to return a verdict in a civil case (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16). If the jury finds for the plaintiff, it then determines the amount of damages.

Categories of Damages: California law recognizes two broad categories of compensatory damages:

• Economic damages: Objectively verifiable losses — past and future medical expenses, lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and property damage.
• Non-economic damages: Subjective, non-monetary losses — pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium.
• Punitive damages: Available in cases involving oppression, fraud, or malice (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294).

Comparative Fault — The Rule of Li v. Yellow Cab: California follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence, first adopted by the California Supreme Court in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Under this rule, a plaintiff’s damages are reduced in direct proportion to their percentage of fault — even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. If a jury finds a plaintiff 70% responsible and the defendant 30% responsible for $500,000 in damages, the plaintiff still recovers $150,000.

Medical Damages — The Howell Rule: Following Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541, a plaintiff’s recovery of past medical expenses is limited to the amount actually paid or incurred — not the full billed amount — where the plaintiff received the benefit of a negotiated rate reduction.

Controlling Authority:

• Case Law: Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 (California adopts pure comparative negligence; liability apportioned in direct proportion to fault in all cases); Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 (recovery of past medical expenses limited to amounts actually paid or incurred, not billed charges)
• Primary Law: Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 (measure of damages for tort); Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (punitive damages for malice, fraud, oppression); Cal. Const., art. I, § 16 (three-fourths civil jury verdict)
• CACI (Quasi-Primary): CACI No. 3900 — Introduction to Tort Damages; CACI No. 3905A — Physical Pain, Mental Suffering, and Emotional Distress; CACI No. 406 — Apportionment of Responsibility (comparative fault)

Stage 10: Post-Trial — Judgment, Collection & Appeal

The verdict is not always the end. Post-trial proceedings address the formalization of judgment, collection of any award, and — if warranted — the appellate process.

Judgment and Memorandum of Costs: After the verdict, the prevailing party files a memorandum of costs to recover allowable litigation costs. The losing party has 15 days to move to tax (challenge) those costs. If a valid CCP § 998 offer was made and rejected, post-offer costs and expert fees shift accordingly.

Motions for New Trial and JNOV: A losing party may move for a new trial (CCP § 657) or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — JNOV — (CCP § 629), arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that damages are excessive or inadequate, or that legal errors occurred. These motions must be filed and heard within strict time limits following entry of judgment.

Collecting the Judgment: A judgment in your favor is not a check. If the defendant fails to pay voluntarily, collection is pursued through wage garnishment, bank levies, real property liens, or charging orders against business interests. When defendants are insured — as is typical in auto accident and premises liability cases — the insurance carrier generally satisfies the judgment up to policy limits.

Appeals: Either party may appeal the verdict to the California Court of Appeal. An appeal is not a new trial — it is a review of the trial court record for prejudicial legal error. The notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of service of the notice of entry of judgment (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104). The appellate process in California typically takes 18 months to 3 years from filing of the notice of appeal to a written decision.

Controlling Authority:

• Primary Law: CCP § 657 (motion for new trial — grounds and time limits); CCP § 629 (judgment notwithstanding the verdict — JNOV); CCP § 1032 (prevailing party costs); CCP § 1033.5 (allowable costs)
• Appellate Rules: Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104 (60-day deadline to file notice of appeal); Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200–8.360 (appellate briefing and procedure).

Why Experienced Counsel Matters at Every Stage

As this guide illustrates, a California personal injury case is not a single event — it is a multi-stage legal process governed by a dense body of statutes, court rules, jury instructions, and case law. Missing a filing deadline, failing to preserve evidence, or misunderstanding the rules of discovery can cost a client everything.

At VictimsLawyer.com, we handle every stage of your case — from the moment of injury through verdict and, if necessary, appeal. Our work is grounded in the same authority that governs California courts: the Code of Civil Procedure, the California Rules of Court, CACI, and the decisions of the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal.

Disclaimer: This blog post is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change; always consult a licensed California personal injury attorney for advice specific to your situation. VictimsLawyer.com is a Los Angeles, California personal injury law practice.

About the Author: Steven M. Sweat, Esq.

Steven M. Sweat is the founder and principal attorney of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, with over 30 years of dedicated experience representing accident victims and their families throughout Los Angeles and California. A graduate of California Western School of Law and Florida State University (cum laude), he has built his career on a single mission: to be a tireless champion for the “little guy” against powerful insurance companies and corporate interests.

Over three decades, Mr. Sweat and his firm have recovered millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for clients injured in car accidents, slip and falls, trucking collisions, wrongful death cases, and more. His commitment to exceptional, ethical representation has earned him recognition from the most selective and respected organizations in the legal profession, including:

• Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters) — selected for 10+ consecutive years, an honor awarded to fewer than 5% of attorneys in California
• Top 100 Trial Lawyer — The National Trial Lawyers
• Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
• The Litigator Awards
• Avvo 10.0 “Superb” Rating — the highest possible rating
• Justia 10.0 Rating
• Best Attorneys of America
• Ethical Lawyers of America

Mr. Sweat is an active member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the American Bar Association, Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles (CAALA), Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC), and the American Association for Justice (AAJ).

If you or a loved one has been injured due to someone else’s negligence, contact Steven M. Sweat today for a free consultation. Call toll-free at 866-966-5240 or visit victimslawyer.com. You pay no fee unless we win.

When people are sentenced to prison after being convicted of crimes in California, they expect to do their time while looking forward to a day when they can put it behind them. Unfortunately, a pervasive culture of sexual assault, harassment, and abuse at two major California prisons for women, including the Central California Women’s Facility (Chowchilla) and the California Institution for Women (Chino), has festered for years, leaving the victims to face underserved, far-reaching consequences long after they’ve served their time.

Following numerous complaints and a US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation, these horrific acts have come to light. Former inmates who have been the victims of sexual assault and harassment at these two prisons are now filing civil sexual abuse lawsuits to hold the perpetrators and the state accountable. If you were the victim of sexual assault or abuse at Chowchilla or Chino, you might be entitled to compensation through a civil sexual abuse lawsuit. At the Law Offices of Steven M. Sweat, our compassionate and skilled injury attorneys are prepared to fight for you and help you hold those responsible for your abuse accountable.

What Are Chino and Chowchilla Prisons?

The Central California Women’s Facility is known as Chowchilla because of its location in Chowchilla, California. Similarly, the California Institution for Women is called Chino after its location in Chino, California. These are two of the largest state-run prisons for women in the state. Chowchilla was built in 1990 and is the largest women’s prison in the state, with 2,500 women housed on 640 acres. Chino, which was built in 1952 and designed to hold 1,400 women on a campus of 150 acres, routinely houses as many as 2,100 inmates, leading to persistent overcrowding.

Chino is known for some of the infamous inmates it has housed, including female members of the Manson family. It has secured housing and open dormitories to which women are assigned based on their classification level. Persistent overcrowding and poor supervision have created an environment in which the female inmates are vulnerable to sexual abuse by guards.

Chowchilla houses female inmates at all classification levels, from minimum to maximum security. It is also where the state’s sole female death row exists. Because of its design and size, correctional officers can easily prey on vulnerable inmates. Incidents involving sexual abuse were reported as early as when the prison was opened in 1990 and have continued to occur.

Sexual Abuse of Inmates at Chino Women’s Prison

Investigative reports by the Guardian and other news outlets in 2023 into the sexual abuse of incarcerated women in California prisons found that female inmates were regularly victimized by guards and staff working in the facilities. The journalists investigated sexual abuse perpetrated against women at both the Chino and Chowchilla Women’s Prison facilities.

The reports came amidst the news of extensive sexual assaults at FCI Dublin, a federal prison for women with widespread incidents of guard-on-inmate sexual assaults. That prison was closed by the federal government in 2024, and the US government agreed to settle more than 100 lawsuits filed by women for the treatment they received for $116 million.

Journalists found that these issues were also rampant at both CCWF (Chowchilla) and CIW (Chino). Women incarcerated at Chino were reportedly subjected to regular sexual assaults and abuse by guards and other prison staff. Following the investigative reports, many women who had suffered similar abuse while incarcerated at Chino and Chowchilla came forward to report what happened to them.

Allegations of Abuse by Correctional Officers and Staff at Chino

At Chino, women reported that guards and correctional officers threatened and intimidated the incarcerated women to keep them silent about the abuse they suffered and witnessed. This pattern of intimidation allowed the rampant sexual abuse to continue. The victims have alleged that they suffered rape, sexual harassment, and other coerced sexual acts perpetrated by correctional officers and staff in the facility. In addition, many women also reported sexual abuse perpetrated by Dr. Scott Lee, CIW’s only gynecologist at the women’s prison, who worked there from 2016 to 2023.
​

Allegations of Abuse by Dr. Scott Lee

Gynecologist Dr. Scott Lee reportedly victimized female inmates at Chino for years, and the California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHS) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) failed to do anything to stop his ongoing abuse despite numerous complaints filed by inmates.

Numerous women reported that Dr. Lee abused women during their gynecological exams and retaliated against women who complained by withholding care. Some of the allegations against Dr. Lee include the following:

• Completing excessive, unnecessary anal and vaginal examinations
• Performing invasive gynecological exams while using forcible restraints as the women asked him to stop
• Not allowing female inmates to have privacy
• Humiliating women under his care
• Making sexually suggestive and inappropriate comments
• Not providing trauma-informed care even though many of the women were sexual abuse survivors

Even though numerous women complained about Dr. Lee’s actions, their complaints were ignored. Despite the allegations against Dr. Lee, executives and wardens allowed him to continue practicing on incarcerated women housed at Chino. Because of this, many incarcerated women at Chino avoided gynecological exams and treatment to prevent themselves from being Dr. Lee’s sexual abuse victims.

Sexual Abuse of Women at Chowchilla

Female inmates at CCWF (Chowchilla) were sexually abused ever since the institution first opened in 1990, with little intervention to stop it. Once investigative reports were published about systemic sexual abuse in both Chowchilla and Chino in 2023, many survivors began to speak out.

The victims made numerous allegations about the abuse they suffered and the threats and intimidation correctional officers used to silence them. Women alleged that they were violently raped and assaulted. When they complained, their complaints were ignored and buried. Correctional officers threatened violence when women tried to speak up to intimidate them.

Abuse by Correctional Officer Gregory Rodriguez

Gregory Rodriguez was a correctional officer at the Chowchilla women’s prison who retired in 2022 after a 27-year career with the state prison system. In 2023, the Guardian’s investigative report found that the prison had received a complaint of sexual abuse by Mr. Rodriguez in 2014. Instead of doing anything about the woman’s complaint, the prison officials placed her in solitary confinement and allowed Mr. Rodriguez to continue his employment.

Rodriguez reportedly isolated his victims in areas without cameras. He would offer them gum or candy in exchange for sexual favors and threatened to make their lives difficult if they wouldn’t give in to his sexual demands. Rodriguez was finally arrested and charged, and in January 2025 a Madera County jury convicted him of 64 counts, 59 of them felony sex-crime counts, involving nine women. In August 2025 he was sentenced to 224 years in prison, the maximum allowed under the law. Mr. Rodriguez was sentenced to the maximum allowed under the law, which was 224 years in prison. Female inmates who testified against him reported that he threatened them with solitary confinement, a loss of privileges, or other forms of punishment if they wouldn’t give in to his demands. Women also testified that when they did report him, they faced retaliation.

While Rodriguez’s crimes are particularly egregious, he was not the only perpetrator at Chowchilla. Other correctional officers and staff engaged in sexual abuse against female inmates for years, and prison administrators failed to protect inmates from being victimized. Survivors have also reported that other officers engaged in similar actions. With Rodriguez’s conviction, the state will have a more difficult time trying to deny the victims’ claims or the CDCR’s and prison officials’ ongoing negligence.

Civil Rights Investigation by the US Department of Justice

The US Department of Justice announced it was initiating a civil rights investigation into rampant sexual abuse of female inmates by correctional staff at both CCWF and CIW in September 2024. The DOJ stated that it was initiating the civil rights investigation because of the hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits former inmates at CIW and Chowchilla had filed in 2023 and 2024, ongoing reports of correctional staff at both prisons offering privileges and contraband in exchange for sexual activities, and a report by advocacy groups filed with the California Legislature in March 2024 that detailed the prisons’ pervasive culture of sexual abuse.

Sexual Abuse Lawsuits for Prison Abuse

Hundreds of women have filed sexual abuse lawsuits for their victimization while housed in Chino and Chowchilla Women’s Prisons in California. In these cases, several parties might be potentially liable, including:

• The perpetrator or perpetrators who committed the sexual abuse
• The prison that failed to take action to prevent abuse or to address complaints
• The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for its negligence in failing to prevent sexual abuse
• The California Correctional Health Services for its negligence in failing to act on complaints and allowing Dr. Lee to continue working
• The state as the staff member’s or officer’s employer through vicarious liability

Civil claims against state actors, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, generally must first be presented as a written claim to the state under the Government Claims Act, and the deadline for that claim can be as short as six months (Gov. Code § 911.2), before you can file a lawsuit. It’s important to consult with the experienced civil sexual abuse attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, to learn about your rights and the required procedures. Our experienced team can review your case and help you understand your next steps.

Civil Sexual Abuse Lawsuits vs. Criminal Cases

Many sexual abuse survivors confuse civil sexual abuse lawsuits with criminal prosecution, but there are some key differences to understand. A civil sexual abuse lawsuit is filed in civil court rather than in criminal court and has a lower burden of proof.

In criminal court, the prosecutor must prove the legal elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt before they can secure a conviction. This is a much more difficult standard than what’s required in civil sexual abuse cases. In civil lawsuits, the plaintiff must prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that it is more likely than not to have occurred as the plaintiff has claimed.

It’s easier for civil sexual abuse plaintiffs to win their cases than it is for prosecutors to secure convictions. The lower burden of proof also means that it’s possible for you to pursue a civil sexual abuse lawsuit and win even if the perpetrator who abused you never faces a criminal case or is found not guilty of the same conduct in criminal court.

Filing a civil sexual abuse lawsuit against everyone responsible for the harm you suffered while incarcerated in the Chowchilla or Chino women’s prisons might allow you to hold them accountable for their actions and recover compensation for all of the losses you suffered.

Grounds to File a Civil Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

If you were a victim of sexual abuse while housed in Chino or Chowchilla women’s prisons, you might have a valid claim under the following circumstances:

• A correctional officer, doctor, nurse, counselor, or another staff member sexually abused you while you were incarcerated
• You were abused at a women’s prison within the eligible time period

You can still file a lawsuit even if your abuser wasn’t convicted of a crime or is no longer alive.

Statute of Limitations for Civil Sexual Abuse Lawsuits in California

Every state, including California, has laws called statutes of limitation that set deadlines for filing legal claims. Once the deadline expires, you can’t file a lawsuit or recover compensation through the court process.

The general statute of limitations for injury claims in California is two years under Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 335.1. However, the state recognizes that this deadline can prevent sexual abuse survivors from achieving justice. Many victims don’t feel safe about coming forward for years following their abuse. As a result, the state has enacted two laws to protect the rights of sexual abuse survivors, including the Child Victims Act and the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act.

The Child Victims Act was passed in 2019 and extends the statute of limitations for plaintiffs who were sexually abused as minors. They can now file lawsuits against those responsible until they turn 40.

For adult women who were sexually abused at Chino or Chowchilla while incarcerated, the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act offers greater protection than the general statute of limitations. This law, which was effective in 2023, allows adult victims of sexual abuse to file lawsuits against institutions that enabled or concealed their abuse. Under this law, you can file a lawsuit within 10 years of when your abuse occurred. A separate revival window for older claims involving a cover-up (abuse on or after January 1, 2009) ran only from January 1 through December 31, 2023, and the newer revival window that runs through December 31, 2027 (AB 250) does not apply to claims against public entities such as the State of California. The attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, can help determine which statute of limitations applies to your claim and help you ensure you meet the deadline.

Damages in a Civil Sexual Abuse Lawsuit

Filing a civil sexual abuse lawsuit can allow you to recover financial compensation for your losses, called damages. Compensatory damages are monetary amounts designed to compensate you for your out-of-pocket and non-economic losses and can include:

• Past and future medical expenses related to physical injuries caused by your abuse
• Past and future mental health expenses to treat psychological injuries
• Past and future income losses
• Physical pain and suffering you experienced
• Psychological harm and trauma
• Reduction in your ability to enjoy life
• Other losses

How Much is a Chowchilla or Chino Sex Abuse Lawsuit Worth?

An attorney can’t provide you with a guaranteed recovery amount. How much you might recover depends on the circumstances of your case. However, women who were sexually abused while incarcerated at Chowchilla or Chino women’s prisons might be entitled to substantial compensation. Since these lawsuits don’t involve isolated situations and instead involve systemic misconduct by both the perpetrators and the institutions that ignored the issue and silenced survivors, potential settlement amounts could be significant.

Given that the culture of abuse was pervasive, documented, and occurred over many years, juries are likely to want to protect the vulnerable women who were victimized while incarcerated. This can drive up potential settlement amounts because the defendants and their attorneys might be concerned that a jury could award even more if they fail to make a fair settlement offer. While these projections are general, our attorneys believe that these claims will realize substantial payouts.

Some factors that could increase the value of a sexual abuse lawsuit for incidents that occurred in Chowchilla or Chino include the following:

• Nature/severity of the abuse – Violent acts that involved rape, physical restraints, or forced oral sex will likely receive higher compensation than single, isolated incidents of coerced sexual acts. Those that involve repeated contact or manipulation will also likely receive higher compensation than isolated incidents. Incarcerated women aren’t able to consent to sexual activity with correctional officers because of the unequal power dynamic.
• Impact on the victim – Sexual abuse survivors who have suffered long-term physical, psychological, or emotional harm might receive higher settlement offers. This can include diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), suicidal ideations, depression, anxiety disorder, or dissociative disorders. Some survivors are unable to engage in intimate relationships because of their abuse, and many have suffered from substance use disorders as a result of the harm they suffered.
• Institutional negligence – Showing that the state and prison facility failed to protect you despite ongoing reports about a correctional officer’s or other staff member’s misconduct can lead to a higher settlement amount. This can be especially true if you suffered retaliation or had your complaints covered up or ignored. It can also lead to a higher settlement if the prison allowed an abuser to remain in their job despite repeated complaints against them.
• The attorney you choose – It’s important to choose an attorney who has experience in representing sexual abuse victims. Your attorney should have experience filing complex sexual abuse lawsuits against institutions that engaged in systemic negligence by failing to prevent abuse from occurring or stopping it when discovered. Your attorney should understand what’s involved in complex discovery and have extensive knowledge of California’s personal injury and civil sexual abuse laws. Our attorneys know how to uncover hidden reports and evidence to help you maximize the value of your claim.

Why Civil Sexual Abuse Lawsuits Involving Chino or Chowchilla Are Important

Chino and Chowchilla sexual abuse lawsuits are important because they go beyond the individual perpetrators who committed abuse against female inmates and also go after the system that allowed it to happen. When you file a lawsuit for the abuse you suffered while incarcerated, you can hold the prison system accountable for allowing it to happen to both you and many other victims. This can help you get answers about why these incidents occurred and aid in reforming the system to prevent others from becoming victims in the future.

Through a lawsuit, you can achieve justice by holding all of the parties involved accountable for what happened to you. If successful, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation will face pressure to change the way it allows its prisons to operate and take steps to prevent others from becoming victims.

Get Help From Our Compassionate Attorneys

If you were the victim of sexual abuse while you were incarcerated at CCWF or CIW, you might be entitled to substantial financial compensation for the injuries and harm you suffered. The experienced sexual abuse attorneys at the law firm of Steven M. Sweat, Personal Injury Lawyers, APC, offer confidential, free consultations. We can review what happened in your case and help you understand your next steps. Contact us today to schedule your consultation by calling us at 866-966-5240.

The study

Researchers at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital, which is located in Columbus, Ohio, looked at stair accident data gathered by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System between 1990 and 2012 for injuries that required emergency department treatment.[1] During the 23 years that were included in the study, more than 25 million people were injured. This was an average staircase injury rate of 38 per 10,000 residents each year and means that an estimated 3,000 staircase injury accidents happen every day with one occurring every 30 seconds in the U.S.

The study’s senior author stated that people of all ages are commonly injured in stair-related accidents. He also stated that the rate and frequency of stair injuries have been increasing. Each year, stair-related injuries that do not result in fatalities cost an average of $92 billion. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that approximately 50% of private U.S. residences contain stairs.

The researchers said that more work needs to be done to prevent stair-related injuries, including in the construction and design phases. Between 1990 and 1996, the rates of stair injuries decreased by 13%. However, it then increased by 24% between 1996 and 2012. Among those who were injured, 60% percent of the accidents happened in private homes, and 62% of the injured victims were women.

The highest rates of injury were found with younger adults in their 20s, children who were younger than age three, and elderly adults who were older than age 85. However, more than 66% of the visits to the emergency departments were made by people from the ages of 11 and 60.

The researchers stated that it was unclear why women were likelier to be injured in stair-related accidents. They surmised that women who were in their parenting years might have greater exposure to stairs in their homes while they are completing chores and caring for their children.

Out of the people who had to go to the emergency department for the treatment of stair-related injuries, almost 94% were treated and released. However, 6% of the injured patients were admitted because of concussions or fractures. The most commonly occurring injuries included scrapes, strains, sprains, bruises, and fractures. Children who were injured and who were younger than 10 years old suffered more head injuries. Older adults suffered a greater number of fractures.

Around 60% of the patients reported that they did not know the cause of their accidents. Another 23% reported that they fell after misstepping, slipping, or sliding. A small percentage reported that they could not see where they were stepping because they were carrying items.

The authors said that one common hazard for tripping on stairs is failing to have an overhanging tread on the top step of a staircase. The pattern of staircases might also make people miss the last step when they are walking down a staircase because of an illusion created by the bottom of the stairs.

Recommendations

The researchers said that future researchers should consider stair safety and design. They recommended that remodeling and new construction projects might want to include greater foot surfaces for people to step on. They also said that the vertical and horizontal stair surfaces should be uniform so that people would be less likely to misstep.

According to a building consultant who was not involved in the study, a double standard exists between the standards for residential and commercial staircases. Such things as including handrails that contain a power grip can allow people to grab the railing with their entire hands instead of just their fingers. People should also fix loose carpet and slick surfaces.

People should reduce the risk of injuries by keeping clutter and debris off of their stairs. They should also make sure that their stairways have good lighting, and they should avoid trying to multitask while they are climbing or descending stairs in their homes. Finally, cities might want to consider revising their building codes to improve the safety standards for the construction of staircases.

When might an injured victim have a legal claim after a stair injury accident?

Not every stair accident will have the required grounds for filing an injury lawsuit. Whether you might have a claim will depend on where your fall occurred, whether you were legally present, and whether a defect or another problem caused your fall and injuries. If you simply slipped and fell on the stairs in your home because you were not paying attention, you will not have valid grounds for a claim. However, if you were visiting the property of another and fell because of a dangerous condition on the stairs or in a stairwell, you may have grounds to file a lawsuit to recover damages.

Residential and commercial property owners have a duty of care to keep their premises in a reasonably hazard-free and safe condition. If you were a guest at someone else’s home or were visiting a business to shop when you fell on stairs and were injured, you may have grounds to file a claim, depending on whether a dangerous condition existed for a long enough time that it should reasonably have been discovered and fixed to prevent accidents and injuries.

Some of the reasons for staircase falls that have been identified by the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers include the following:

• Poor lighting
• Stair defects
• Damaged steps
• Improper stair riders
• Faulty handrails

If stairs are inadequately maintained, they can become damaged and cause people to trip or slip and fall. Building owners and homeowners should promptly repair damaged steps to prevent people from falling and injuring themselves. They should also make sure that any carpets or riders on stairs are secured and not bunched up, and there should be plenty of light in stairwells so that people can see where they are stepping. The handrails should be kept in good condition so that people can grab onto them to prevent themselves from falling if they slip.

If your fall happened when you were visiting the property of someone else because of damage to the stairs, poor lighting, or debris, you may have grounds to file a lawsuit against the property’s owner or operator. An experienced attorney can review what happened and offer guidance about the merits of your claim.

Contact the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers for help

Injury accidents on stairs are common in California and the U.S. When people fall and injure themselves while navigating stairs because of the negligence of others, they may have valid grounds to file claims to recover compensation for their losses. Contact the Steven M. Sweat Personal Injury Lawyers today to learn about your potential claim by calling us at 866.966.5240.

Sources

[1] https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(17)30759-3/fulltext [2] https://www.victimslawyer.com/stairway-accident-claims.html