Can I Sue Caltrans After a Crash in a Highway Work Zone?

Table of Contents

What has to happen before I can sue Caltrans over a crash in a highway work zone?

No suit for damages may be brought against a public entity until a claim has been presented and acted on or deemed rejected, subject to statutory exceptions (Government Code section 945.4). For an injury, the claim must be presented within six months after the cause of action accrues (Government Code section 911.2). The Law Offices of J. Chrisp handles many highway construction zone crash cases.

Under Streets and Highways Code section 90, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) holds full possession and control of every state highway. The State is a public entity under the Government Claims Act (Government Code section 811.2). So a crash caused by a condition in a Caltrans work zone can support a claim against the State, but only within statutory limits and immunities.

Where a claim against the State is filed

The Department of General Services (DGS) runs the Government Claims Program through its Office of Risk and Insurance Management (DGS, File a Claim). It says any person or business can file a claim for damages believed to be caused by the State of California. Claims can be filed online, through a form hosted by a third party, or by mail on the paper form. The filing fee is $25, and a paper fee waiver request is available.

Caltrans takes some claims itself (Caltrans, Submit Damage Claim). A claim for injury or death believed to be caused by Caltrans may be filed directly with Caltrans if it is for $12,500 or less. That claim goes, with supporting documents, to the Caltrans District Claims Office for the county where the incident occurred. A claim for more than $12,500 goes to the Government Claims Program.

When a claim counts as presented

For deadline purposes, a claim is presented to DGS on the date it is submitted with the filing fee (Government Code section 911.2, subdivision (b)). If a fee waiver is granted, the date is when the claim was submitted with the waiver affidavit. If the waiver is denied, the affidavit date still counts, but only if the fee is paid within 10 calendar days after the denial notice is mailed.

After the claim: decision, late claims and the lawsuit deadline

A claim must be acted on within 45 days after it is presented, unless that period is extended by written agreement. Without action in time, the claim is deemed rejected on the last day (Government Code section 912.4).
A claim not presented on time needs a written application for leave to present a late claim. The application must be made within a reasonable time, no later than one year after accrual, with the reason for the delay and the proposed claim attached (Government Code section 911.4).
Where the claim is rejected by written notice that complies with the statute, suit must be filed within six months after the notice is personally delivered or mailed. Without that notice, suit must be filed within two years after accrual (Government Code section 945.6).

What the injured person must prove

Except as a statute provides otherwise, the State is liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the injured person establishes each of these points (Government Code section 835):

The property was in a dangerous condition when the injury happened.
The injury was proximately caused by that condition.
The injury suffered was of a kind the condition made reasonably foreseeable.
Someone employed by the State, acting within the scope of that job, created the condition through a negligent or wrongful act or omission. Alternatively, the State had actual or constructive notice of the condition early enough to protect against it.

A minor, trivial or insignificant risk is not enough. The condition must create a substantial risk of injury to people using the property, or adjacent property, with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way (Government Code section 830).

Design immunity and how it can be lost

Government Code section 830.6 protects a public entity from liability for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or improvement to, public property. In Cornette v. Department of Transportation (2001) 26 Cal.4th 63, the California Supreme Court said an entity claiming this immunity must establish three elements. They are a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident, discretionary approval of it before construction, and substantial evidence supporting its reasonableness.

Under the statute, the approval can come from the entity’s legislative body or from a body or employee with discretionary authority to give it. A design prepared under standards approved that way also qualifies. The trial or appellate court decides whether the substantial-evidence test is met.

The court in Cornette also described how the immunity can be lost. The injured person must show three things. First, the design has become dangerous because of a change in physical conditions. Second, the entity had actual or constructive notice of that danger. Third, the entity had a reasonable time to obtain funds and fix the property, or, if a fix was impossible or unaffordable, did not reasonably try to give adequate warnings.

Where the lawsuit is tried

A lawsuit naming the State over an injury or death in California is properly tried in a court of the county where the injury happened (Government Code section 955.2). On motion, the court may move the trial under the same rules that apply between private parties.

Work zone results

Results shown on chrisplaw.com include $300,000 in a highway roadway design defect case and $5,360,000 in a dangerous construction zone case. Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Frequently asked questions

Does a jury decide whether design immunity was lost?

It can. In Cornette v. Department of Transportation, the California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff has a right to a jury trial on the issues involved in loss of design immunity when there are triable issues of material fact.

What if a contractor working for Caltrans caused the crash?

The State can be liable for an independent contractor’s tortious act or omission that proximately causes an injury, to the same extent a private person would be (Government Code section 815.4). That liability does not exist where the State would not have been liable had a state employee done the same thing.

Is the state claims process a form of insurance?

No. Caltrans says the claims process is not a reimbursement or insurance program.

If you were hurt in a crash in a Caltrans work zone, call the Law Offices of J. Chrisp 24/7 at 877-J-CHRISP (877-524-7477) for a free consultation. There is no fee unless we win.

About the Law Offices of J. Chrisp

The Law Offices of J. Chrisp is a Northern California personal injury law firm founded by attorney Jesse Chrisp, who was raised in Lake County. The firm represents injured people, with offices in Lower Lake (main office), Santa Rosa and San Francisco, and serves Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties and the San Francisco Bay Area. Consultations are free, the firm works on a contingency fee with no fee unless the firm wins, and the phone is answered 24/7 at 877-J-CHRISP (877-524-7477). The firm was named to Best Law Firms 2026 (Tier 1, Santa Rosa, Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs). Jesse Chrisp has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America since 2024 and selected to Super Lawyers from 2023 to 2026.