as seen on
Another driver, a public entity, or both may be responsible. Under Civil Code section 1714, drivers answer for injury caused by their want of ordinary care, except so far as the injured person’s own carelessness brought it on. A public entity is liable only where a statute provides, subject to statutory immunities (Government Code section 815). The Law Offices of J. Chrisp handles many highway construction zone crash cases.
The Law Offices of J. Chrisp represents people hurt in crashes inside highway construction and maintenance zones in Northern California, including Sonoma, Napa, Lake and Mendocino counties and the San Francisco Bay Area. The consultation is free, and the firm works on a contingency fee: there is no fee unless we win. The phone is answered 24/7 at 877-J-CHRISP (877-524-7477).
Results shown on chrisplaw.com in work zone and road design cases include:
Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. More results are on the firm’s case results page.
While highway construction, maintenance or repair is under way, traffic through or around the area may be restricted and regulated (Vehicle Code section 21367). That power belongs to authorized representatives of Caltrans or local authorities on their own highways. It includes persons contracting to do the work, with the approval of Caltrans or the local authority. It applies when traffic would endanger workers or the work would endanger traffic.
Traffic may be regulated with warning signs, lights, control devices or people directing traffic. Disobeying a person directing traffic under that section is unlawful. So is failing to follow the warning signs, lights or other control devices set up under it.
For a dangerous condition of public property, the governing statute is Government Code section 835. Except as provided by statute, the public entity is liable for an injury caused by that condition if the injured person proves all of the following:
A dangerous condition is one that creates a substantial risk of injury, as distinguished from a minor, trivial or insignificant one (Government Code section 830). The risk is measured when the property or adjacent property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way. Protecting against the condition includes repairing it, providing safeguards or warning of it.
The state is a public entity, as are counties and cities (Government Code section 811.2). Caltrans has full possession and control of all state highways (Streets and Highways Code section 90).
Design immunity protects a public entity and its employees from liability for an injury caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or improvement to, public property (Government Code section 830.6). It applies in two situations. One is a plan or design approved in advance by the entity’s legislative body or by a body or employee with discretionary authority to approve it. The other is a plan or design prepared under standards approved that way.
The immunity applies only if the trial or appellate court finds any substantial evidence that a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan, design or standards. Substantial evidence that a reasonable body or employee could have approved them also qualifies.
Failing to provide the traffic or warning signals, signs, markings or devices described in the Vehicle Code generally does not make a public entity liable (Government Code section 830.8). The exception is a sign or device that was necessary to warn of a dangerous condition that endangered the safe movement of traffic. The condition must also be one that a person using due care would not reasonably see or anticipate.
That exception does not cover regulatory traffic signals, stop signs, yield signs, speed restriction signs or distinctive roadway markings described in the Vehicle Code. A condition is not dangerous merely because those are missing (Government Code section 830.4).
A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by a tortious act or omission of its independent contractor to the same extent as a private person would be (Government Code section 815.4). That does not apply where the entity would not have been liable had its own employee committed the same act or omission.
When a claim is required, no suit for money or damages may be brought against a public entity until a written claim has been presented (Government Code section 945.4). The entity must also have acted on the claim, or the claim must be deemed rejected. The statute lists exceptions.
| Step | Time limit | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Claim to a public entity for personal injury or death | No later than six months after the cause of action accrues | Government Code section 911.2 |
| Application for leave to present a late claim | Within a reasonable time, no more than one year after accrual; it must state the reason for the delay and attach the proposed claim | Government Code section 911.4 |
| Public entity acts on the claim | Within 45 days after presentation, unless extended by written agreement; with no action, the claim is deemed rejected on the last day | Government Code section 912.4 |
| Lawsuit after the entity gives proper written notice rejecting the claim | No later than six months after the notice is personally delivered or mailed | Government Code section 945.6 |
| Lawsuit against a public entity when proper written notice is not given | Within two years after accrual | Government Code section 945.6 |
| Lawsuit against a driver or other private party for injury or death caused by a wrongful act or neglect | Generally within two years after accrual, unless a statute sets a different limit | Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; section 312 |
The firm’s main office is at 9667 Highway 29, Lower Lake, CA 95457. It also has offices at 3558 Round Barn Blvd, Suite 200, Santa Rosa, CA 95403, and 1330 Bush Street, Suite 9D, San Francisco, CA 94109. The firm was founded by Jesse Chrisp, who was born in Santa Rosa and grew up in Lake County.
For the offenses listed in Vehicle Code section 42009, yes. In a misdemeanor case the fine is doubled, and in an infraction case it moves one category higher on the uniform penalty schedule. This applies only while workers are actually doing construction or maintenance work and work zone traffic controls or warning signs notify motorists of them.
It means the condition existed long enough, and was obvious enough, that a public entity using due care should have discovered it and its dangerous character (Government Code section 835.2). The injured person has to prove this. Actual notice means the entity knew the condition existed and knew or should have known it was dangerous.
Yes. The Law Offices of J. Chrisp has Spanish-speaking staff.
If you were hurt in a crash in a highway construction zone in Northern California, 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.
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.
What to Do If You Have Been Injured in a Dangerous Highway Construction Zone in Santa Rosa
Highway 29 and Highway 20 Construction Zone Crashes in Lake and Napa Counties
Work Zone Crash Lawyer Serving Sacramento
Can I Sue Caltrans After a Crash in a Highway Work Zone?
Government Code section 811.2, section 815, section 815.4, section 830, section 830.4, section 830.6, section 830.8, section 835 and section 835.2, California Legislative Information
Government Code section 911.2, section 911.4, section 912.4, section 945.4 and section 945.6, California Legislative Information
Civil Code section 1714, California Legislative Information
Code of Civil Procedure section 312 and section 335.1, California Legislative Information
Vehicle Code section 21367 and section 42009, California Legislative Information
Streets and Highways Code section 90, California Legislative Information
Case results and Construction accident page, chrisplaw.com
Attorney Advertising. This page provides general information about California law and is not legal advice for any specific situation. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Last updated October 2026.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by attorney Jesse Chrisp, who has been continuously recognized as a leader in personal injury law since starting his law firm in 2010.
Simply fill the form out below to request your free consultation and we will be in touch within 24 hours.
or call us at
Message Us
Call Now