The thought crosses the mind of nearly every injury victim who waits more than a few weeks before looking into their options. You assume the clock has run out, that some deadline passed while you were dealing with doctors, insurance calls, and the ordinary disruption of recovering from an injury. In California, that assumption sends more people away from rightful compensation than almost any other single mistake.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 gives most personal injury victims two years from the date of the accident to file a civil lawsuit. Tim D. Wright knows the exceptions to that rule, the tolling provisions that can extend it, and the specific situations where the window is shorter than the standard two years. Before you conclude it is too late to pursue your case, Tim D. Wright can tell you exactly where the deadline stands for your specific situation.
The statute of limitations is a legal deadline. If you do not file a lawsuit within the applicable window, the court will generally refuse to hear your case. The other side gets to walk away regardless of how strong your evidence is or how serious your injuries were.
For most personal injury cases in California, that window is two years from the date the injury occurred. A car accident in Burbank on a specific date gives you two years from that date to file. That is the baseline. But the baseline applies far less frequently than most people assume.
The two-year clock also does not start on the date of the accident in every situation. In cases where the injury was not immediately apparent, California applies what is called the discovery rule. The clock starts when you discovered or reasonably should have discovered the injury and its connection to someone else's negligence.
This distinction matters significantly. A soft tissue injury that developed over weeks, a concussion whose effects were not recognized until later, or an internal condition that was only identified through subsequent medical imaging are all situations where the discovery rule can extend the applicable deadline. Tim D. Wright assesses which rule applies based on the specific facts of the situation.
Government entities operate under different rules. If your accident involved a city bus, a pothole on a public road, a government vehicle, or any property maintained by a public agency, California Government Code Section 911.2 requires you to file an administrative claim within six months of the incident. Missing that six-month window can permanently close the door on your case before a lawsuit is even filed.
This is the deadline that catches the most people off guard. A resident of Burbank, Glendale, or North Hollywood who slips on a city-maintained sidewalk, gets hit by an MTA bus, or is injured on public school property has six months to initiate the claims process, not two years. The difference between those two timelines has cost many injury victims their right to any recovery at all.
Cases involving minors operate under different rules as well. In California, the statute of limitations for a minor's personal injury claim is generally tolled, meaning paused, until the minor turns 18. The clock then starts from that birthday. Parents and guardians should understand this provision when making decisions about pursuing a claim on a child's behalf.
Medical malpractice cases have their own specific deadlines separate from general personal injury law. Product liability cases, cases involving out-of-state defendants, and cases where the defendant has been absent from California can all involve different calculations. Tim D. Wright identifies which set of rules applies to each specific situation during the initial assessment.
Tolling is the legal term for pausing the statute of limitations clock. California recognizes several situations where the clock stops running, giving the injured person additional time beyond the standard deadline.
Mental or physical incapacity is one tolling ground recognized under California law. If the injury itself left the victim unable to pursue legal action, the limitations period may be tolled for the duration of that incapacity. The specific legal standard is defined by statute and requires careful evaluation.
Fraudulent concealment by the defendant is another. If the party responsible for your injury took active steps to prevent you from discovering their negligence or the extent of the harm caused, California courts can toll the limitations period for the time that concealment was in effect. This most commonly arises in cases involving defective products or medical negligence.
The defendant's absence from California can also toll the limitations period. Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 351, the time a defendant spends outside the state after the cause of action arises is generally not counted against the plaintiff. Tim D. Wright evaluates whether any tolling provisions apply as part of the initial case assessment.
A statute of limitations tells you the last possible moment to file. It says nothing about what the ideal moment is. Evidence deteriorates with time. Witnesses move away, and their memories fade. Surveillance footage is overwritten. Accident scene conditions change. The legal deadline and the practical deadline for building a strong case are not the same thing.
An attorney who reviews a case six months after an accident is working with a fundamentally different evidentiary picture than one who is brought in within the first two weeks. Both situations can result in viable claims. But the quality and completeness of the evidence base is almost always stronger when the case is built earlier.
Insurance companies also change their behavior as time passes. Adjusters who are still actively working a file in the early months respond differently than those who have moved on and must reconstruct a case from aging records. The negotiating dynamic shifts as time passes, and it almost never shifts in the injured person's favor.
If you are reading this because you are worried the deadline may have passed, the most useful thing you can do right now is describe your situation to Tim D. Wright. The assessment of whether your window is still open, and what it actually looks like if it is, takes a direct conversation, not a general estimate based on the standard rules.
Eighteen months is within the standard two-year window for most personal injury cases in California. That means you have time, but not an unlimited amount of it. The practical concern at 18 months is not just the legal deadline but the state of the evidence. Witness memories are less sharp, some documentation may be harder to obtain, and the picture you can build from this point is less complete than it would have been earlier. That does not mean the case cannot be pursued. It means the assessment of what the case looks like now is an important conversation to have as soon as possible.
It depends on what caused the accident and who was responsible for the condition that caused it. If the accident involved a defect in a city-maintained roadway, a broken signal, inadequate signage, or a city vehicle, the six-month government claim requirement under California Government Code Section 911.2 likely applies. If the accident involved only private parties on a public road, the standard two-year window generally governs. This distinction requires a specific factual analysis. If there is any possibility of government involvement, contacting Tim D. Wright as soon as possible is critical.
Yes, and this is exactly the situation the discovery rule is designed to address. California's discovery rule provides that the statute of limitations begins running when the plaintiff discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury and its cause. If your injuries were not apparent at the time of the accident and only became recognizable through subsequent medical evaluation, the clock may have started later than the accident date itself. The specific application of the discovery rule to your situation requires a detailed factual review. Tim D. Wright can assess how it applies based on the specific sequence of events in your case.
Filing at the last possible moment creates risks that filing earlier does not. Attorneys need time to properly investigate the claim, gather evidence, and prepare documents. A case filed at the deadline with inadequate preparation is in a worse position than one filed earlier with a full evidentiary foundation. Beyond the practical concerns, filing errors made under time pressure are harder to correct than those caught during a careful review. Tim D. Wright strongly recommends reaching out as early as possible, not because the legal deadline requires it, but because the quality of the case depends on it.
Most people who believe they have missed the window to file have not actually checked. They assumed, based on a general understanding of the law, that time had run out. In many cases, that assumption is wrong.
California personal injury law has exceptions, tolling provisions, and fact-specific rules that can significantly change the deadline that applies to your situation. Tim D. Wright has spent 34 years evaluating exactly these questions for clients across Burbank, Glendale, and throughout Southern California.
The firm takes cases on a contingency basis. Call (323) 379-9995 or go to timwrightlaw.com/contact. Describe what happened and when. Tim D. Wright will tell you directly whether your window is still open and what the path forward actually looks like.
📍 Burbank Office: 1112 W. Burbank Blvd., Suite 302, Burbank, CA 91506
📍 Van Nuys Office: 16555 Sherman Way, Suite B2, Van Nuys, CA 91406
📞 Phone: (323) 379-9995 (Personal Injury) | (818) 428-1080 (Workers’ Comp)
📧 Email: firm@timwrightlaw.com
🌐 Website: www.timwrightlaw.com
📱 Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter
