I am looking for a case law precedent that supports the principle that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrongful act or omission has ended.
Any help or guidance from this forum in identifying a successful case that supports this position would be greatly appreciated.
Explore California’s sovereignty, its legal authority within the U.S. system, and how state powers interact with federal law and judicial oversight.
legalclarity.org
Government Liability Lawyers California Sovereign Immunity From Tort Liability
The state of California provides a direct legal path to pursue damages from a government entity after a personal injury or other tort liability. In some cases, however, the government entity may be granted immunity by a statute or constitutional provision.
The California Tort Claims Act determines whether or not the government is immune to action and therefore oversees when the state can be sued. If a California resident hopes to bring charges against the state, they must adhere to a variety of vague and complicated procedures that often prevent a case from moving forward.
The primary law for suing the government is the California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) of 1963. Prior to its passing, most government entities were exempt from liability in personal injury cases. Now there are multiple ways that public entities can be held responsible for their actions. An experienced Chain | Cohn | Clark lawyer can help explain how the CTCA affects tort law in California.
For centuries there has been a general rule in U.S. and English law that absolves public entities of liability. Also known as the rule of
sovereign immunity, it is meant to prevent residents from suing leaders or rulers even if the decisions of said leaders negatively affected the resident(s).
Sovereign immunity basically means that a public entity is not liable for any injuries caused by the public entity or its employees as they are fulfilling their duty.
The California Tort Claims Act lists exceptions to sovereign immunity in which the government can be held liable for the harm that they cause. This gives people the option to pursue damages in cases of gross negligence or corruption.
However, even if a California resident does have good cause to pursue damages, they still face the difficult process of navigating the CTCA. If you are attempting to sue a government entity, you will want to hire an experienced
tort lawyer who understands the unique procedures set by the CTCA.
Let's get more specific about the situations in which a public employee can be held accountable. California public employees are granted sovereign immunity for a personal injury if the accident happens in the course of their employment. The "course of employment" refers to all activities an employee may reasonably undertake when fulfilling their duties. If harm is caused as the result of a public employee's work responsibilities, the responsible entity will be immune from legal action.
However, if there is any evidence of fraud or corruption, a public entity will be held responsible for the acts of their employee. This includes any act or omission of information that proximately caused the victim's injury and should have led to some form of remedial action. As you can see, these restrictions tend to be vague and sometimes subjective. This can make pursuing damages from a public or state organization very challenging.
While the California Tort Claims Act may make it more accessible to pursue damages from a public entity, it is still a long and complicated process requiring significant attention to detail and procedural protocols. Similar to private companies, the government has no desire to pay you for their mistakes. They will likely try to mitigate any costs they can. A good attorney will help you hold a government entity accountable with the following strategies.
When attempting to establish government liability, a plaintiff can use the argument of mandatory duty. Mandatory duties are expectations placed upon public entities by constitutional provisions, ordinances, statutes, or regulations. These outline how a public entity is supposed to act or what they owe to the public.
To secure damages from a public entity on the grounds of mandatory duty, the plaintiff must prove all three of the following:
- There is an existing statute that imposes a mandatory duty on a public entity;
- That statute was imposed to prevent or protect against the type of risk suffered by the plaintiff; and
- The breach of that mandatory duty by the public entity was a proximate—if not direct—cause of the plaintiff's injury.
If these conditions have been met, the state of California will be considered negligent in causing harm to the plaintiff. While the process may seem simple enough, finding statutes, proving mandatory duty, and connecting the events is no small task.
Reaching out to a law firm with experience in government liability law will significantly increase your chances of recovering compensation.
California law is used to protect the government from lawsuits for any injuries that occur due to defects of public property. Any building or land owned or controlled by a public entity was off limits for legal action.
The passage of the California Tort Claims Act increased the scope of government liability by holding public entities accountable when the following conditions are all met:
- An individual is injured on property that is owned or controlled by a public entity;
- That injury was caused by a dangerous condition on the property;
- The dangerous condition posed a reasonably foreseeable risk for the sustained injury;
- Either the dangerous condition is a direct result of omission of information or negligent or wrongful acts of a public employee in the scope of their employment, or the public entity was notified of the dangerous condition a sufficient amount of time prior to the injury to the point where a reasonable measure should have been taken to prevent said injuries; and
- The dangerous condition ended up being a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.
The two ways a plaintiff can prove that the public entity had prior knowledge of a dangerous condition are through actual and constructive notice.
Actual notice refers to the actual knowledge of an existing problem. This means the public was clearly aware of the issue and should have known that it was dangerous.
Constructive notice refers to the idea that the dangerous condition was obvious and existed for so long that the public entity should have discovered it when exercising due care. In either case, it is the plaintiff's responsibility to show that the public entity should have addressed the dangerous condition.
If you are trying to sue a state employee or public entity for your injury under the California government claims act, you will need to file a claim with the
California Department of General Services' Office of Risk and Insurance Management. This link will show you the required process for filing a claim against a government entity and provide a list of claims that must be filed with a state agency directly. Some claims must also be sent to a specific address.
Some cities and counties have online claim portals with forms that you can use to speed up the claim process. LA, San Diego, and San Jose all have claim assistance on their websites.
If there is no dedicated claim form, you may need to draft your own "notice of claim" letter to the city or public entity. The following information should be included in a notice of claim letter:
- Name
- Mailing address
- Mailing address of the recipient
- Date, location, and description of injury/accident
- General description of all damages and expenses (medical costs, injuries, lost wages, etc.)
- Name of government employee(s) responsible for injury (if known)
- Amount of claimed losses and how they were calculated if below $10,000
- Whether or not a claim for more than $10,000 will be a "limited civil case" or not
A
limited civil case is a lawsuit that seeks less than $25,000 and does not try to obtain a determination of title to property, an injunction, or an enforcement of a California Family Code order.
One of the most difficult parts of filing a lawsuit against the government in California is the strict deadlines. Before a lawsuit can be brought to court, a tort claim must be filed within six months of the injury date. This is only a fraction of the
time available when filing a personal injury claim.
After the claim is filed, the government will then have 45 days to accept or reject it. If the government accepts the claim, they will pay the fine and no further action will be needed. If all or part of the claim is rejected, or the state does not respond within 45 days, you can move forward with a lawsuit in court. The government may also try to negotiate a lower settlement similar to a private party.
Regardless of what happens with your claim, you are not required to file a lawsuit. You should provide a notice of the state's decision to keep your options open.
Whether you are writing a notice of claim letter or filing a full-on lawsuit, you should
contact a lawyer if you are attempting to recover benefits from a state or public entity. Here at Chain | Cohn | Clark, we represent California residents in a
wide range of injury cases. Government liability and tort law are topics we are very familiar with.
Let us do the heavy lifting. We offer free case evaluations and unbridled motivation, a combination that will help you recover the maximum compensation you deserve.
Chain | Cohn | Clark explains how California sovereign immunity and tort law impact injury claims against public entities.
www.chainlaw.com
The California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) is a sovereign immunity law that protects the state government from liability in certain personal injury cases.
www.shouselaw.com
California's legal framework provides specific protections, known as governmental immunities, for state and local government entities and their employees. Picture this: A medieval Kin, untouchable by law. Fast forward to today, and that concept still exists in the form of sovereign immunity. In California, it's not just a dusty legal relic its codified in
Government Code section 815, better known as the
California Tort Claims Act (CTCA) acting as a forcefield around public entities. But like any good fantasy story, this shield does have its weak points and while you might be thinking at this point you are completely out of luck finding excellent legal representation to help you maneuver the mine field is the first step in determining if your personal injury claim will survive.
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents individuals from suing government entities unless the government consents to be sued. The key general immunities can be surmised as follows:
- The Blanket of General Immunity: Think of it as the government's "Get Out of Jail Free" card, but with fine print. Public entities are immune from liability unless another statute explicitly states otherwise. For example, exceptions exist under Gov. Code § 835 for dangerous conditions on public property
- The Discretionary Act Shield: This one's tricky. It protects government employees making judgment calls, even if those calls are as bad as your uncle's karaoke performance. Public employees are immune when their actions involve discretion vested in them, such as policymaking decisions. However, operational or ministerial acts may still be subject to liability if negligence is proven under Gov. Code § 820.2.
- The "Not My Job" Defense: Failure to enforce laws? Sorry, no lawsuit here. It's like blaming the referee for not calling every foul in a basketball game. Governments are not liable for injuries resulting from their failure to adopt or enforce laws under Gov. Code § 818.2.
- Nature's Get-Out-of-Court Card: Injured by Mother Nature on public land? The government says, "Don't blame us, blame the trees!" Neither public entities nor employees are liable for injuries caused by natural conditions on unimproved public property under Gov. Code § 831.2.
- The Blueprint Bulletproof Vest: Approved designs for public infrastructure come with a built-in lawsuit deflector. Public entities are protected from liability for injuries caused by approved designs of public infrastructure, such as roadways, and even public transportation systems under Gov. Code §830.6.
All hope is not lost for the injured citizen. While the Tort Claims Act establishes broad immunities, it also provides exceptions where injured parties can seek compensation like secret passages in the government's legal fortress:
- The "You Should Have Known Better" Dangerous Condition (Gov. Code § 835):
- A public entity was "asleep at the wheel' they may be held liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions on its property if it had prior notice and failed to address the issue.
- When Government Employees Go Rogue:
- If a public employee's act falls outside the immunity bubble the entity may be held accountable.
If you think filing a claim against the government is like any other lawsuit, think again! It's more like applying for a top-secret clearance with a large side of bureaucratic red tape. Miss a deadline or skip a step, and your case could vanish the moment you look away. This is a high stakes game where the rules rules are complex and the consequences are very real.
Pursuing claims against government entities can be complex due to:
- The broad scope of immunities.
- Ambiguities in distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial acts.
- Procedural hurdles under the Tort Claims Act.
Legal expertise is necessary to navigate these challenges and identify viable claims. Despite the hurdles, justice can prevail. With the right knowledge, timing, and legal expertise, David can take on Goliath. Remember every immunity hast its kryptonite – you just need the right legal representation to know where to look! So next time you're walking down that city sidewalk, remember: you're not just on a path, you're navigating a legal minefield. If disaster strikes, know that while the government's shield is strong it's not impenetrable but finding an excellent lawyer is essential to winning the battle.
Injured on city or state property? Learn how California's governmental immunity laws impact your personal injury claim and how to fight back legally.
dolanlawfirm.com
