Skip to content
MyClaimWorth
CA
California · fracture

Fracture settlements
in California.

By 6 min read

California applies pure comparative negligence and the MICRA cap on medical malpractice non-economic damages, restructured by AB 35 in 2023 onto a phased schedule. For fracture claims specifically, the band is built from the state-by-state tort law · jury verdict reporters · statutory caps framework and then adjusted for California's pure comparative negligence and any applicable statutory cap.

California applies pure comparative negligence, which means a fracture claimant who is partly responsible for their own injury still recovers — the award is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them, but never barred. This is materially more claimant-friendly than the modified or contributory rules in neighbouring jurisdictions, and it shows up in fracture settlements where comparative fault is contested (the claimant who failed to mitigate, the unbelted occupant, the worker who departed from a safety protocol).

California's caps (micra non-economic cap (med-mal), proposition 213) apply to the non-economic component of fracture damages and can compress upper-tier verdicts. The exact application depends on the cause of action and the head of damage; the caps section on this page sets out each ceiling and the conditions under which it bites.

band · US federal frame
$15,000 – $80,000
Wrist or arm fracture
Settlement aggregates

The US band is the starting point. California's fault rule and any applicable cap then adjust the figure.

CA · statute of limitations
2 years for personal injury; 1 year for medical malpractice (with 3-year repose)

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, § 340.5

CA · fault rule
Pure comparative negligence

Pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab (1975) — recovery available at any fault percentage.

CA · caps

What caps recovery.

Statutory caps that may bear on a fracture settlement in California.

fracture · same region & fault regime

Compare to like jurisdictions.

How California's fault rule and limitation period compare to jurisdictions in the same US region and to those running the same fault rule for fracture claims.

JurisdictionFault ruleLimitationFracture page
California · you are herePure comparative negligence2 years for personal injury; 1 year for medical malpractice (with 3-year repose)
ColoradoModified comparative — 50% bar2 years for personal injury; 3 years for motor vehicleCO · fracture
HawaiiModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryHI · fracture
IdahoModified comparative — 50% bar2 years from date of injuryID · fracture
MontanaModified comparative — 51% bar3 years from date of injuryMT · fracture
NevadaModified comparative — 51% bar2 years for personal injury; 3 years for medical malpracticeNV · fracture
OregonModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryOR · fracture
KentuckyPure comparative negligence1 year for personal injury (one of the shortest in the US)KY · fracture
LouisianaPure comparative negligence1 year (la prescription) — extended to 2 years by Act 423 (2024) for tort claims accruing on or after July 1, 2024LA · fracture
MississippiPure comparative negligence3 years from date of injuryMS · fracture
MissouriPure comparative negligence5 years for personal injury; 2 years for medical malpracticeMO · fracture
ConnecticutModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryCT · fracture
DelawareModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryDE · fracture
CA · fracture · frequently asked

Common questions.

Each answer is independently coherent and references the relevant statute or authority document.

editorial note

Figures on this page are starting points: the US band adjusted for California's statutory framework. They are not quotes for any specific case. For representation, consult an attorney admitted in California. See /methodology, /sources, and /disclaimer.