Skip to content
MyClaimWorth
CA
★ California · workplace

Workplace 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 workplace 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 workplace 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 workplace settlements where comparative fault is contested (the claimant who failed to mitigate, the unbelted occupant, the worker who departed from a safety protocol).

Workplace injuries in California run on a parallel track to general tort recovery: workers' compensation is the primary remedy against the employer, with third-party tort claims (against a contractor, equipment manufacturer, or non-employer driver) layered on top. California's caps (micra non-economic cap (med-mal), proposition 213) apply to the third-party tort track only, and the workers' compensation insurer typically holds a subrogation right against any tort recovery.

★ 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 workplace settlement in California.

★ workplace · neighbouring jurisdictions

Compare to neighbours.

How California's fault rule and limitation period compare to other US jurisdictions for workplace claims.

JurisdictionFault ruleLimitationWorkplace page
California · you are herePure comparative negligence2 years for personal injury; 1 year for medical malpractice (with 3-year repose)—
AlabamaPure contributory negligence2 years from date of injuryAL · workplace →
AlaskaPure comparative negligence2 years from date of injury or discoveryAK · workplace
ArizonaPure comparative negligence2 years from date of injuryAZ · workplace →
ArkansasModified comparative — 50% bar3 years for personal injury; 2 years for medical malpracticeAR · workplace →
ColoradoModified comparative — 50% bar2 years for personal injury; 3 years for motor vehicleCO · workplace →
ConnecticutModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryCT · workplace →
DelawareModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryDE · workplace
District of ColumbiaPure contributory negligence3 years from date of injuryDC · workplace →
FloridaModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injury (was 4; reduced by HB 837)FL · workplace →
GeorgiaModified comparative — 50% bar2 years from date of injuryGA · workplace →
HawaiiModified comparative — 51% bar2 years from date of injuryHI · workplace
IdahoModified comparative — 50% bar2 years from date of injuryID · workplace
★ CA · workplace · frequently asked

Common questions.

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

★ all of CA
California overview

Fault rule, statute, caps, and key facts for California as a whole.

★ federal frame
Workplace in United States

Workplace band structure and severity tiers at the US level.

★ all 15 countries
Workplace · everywhere

Cross-jurisdiction comparison of workplace bands.

★ 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.