Can You Sue Caltrans After a California Accident?

Caltrans can be held liable when a dangerous condition on a state highway causes a crash, but a claim against the state follows a specialized body of law and a separate claims process. The agency that builds and maintains California's freeways and state routes is a public entity, so a roadway claim against it is governed by the California Government Claims Act, with strict statutory elements, a powerful design-immunity defense, and a six-month deadline to present a claim.

This article explains what Caltrans is responsible for, the legal standard for holding it liable, how notice is proven, the design-immunity defense and its limits, and the process and deadline for filing a claim against the state.

​

The Short Version

• Caltrans maintains the state highway system, the freeways and numbered state routes, not city streets or county roads, so confirming state ownership of the exact location comes first.
• Liability follows Government Code section 835, the same dangerous-condition standard that applies to any public entity.
• Notice is usually the central issue, proven through collision histories and the agency's own records.
• Design immunity is Caltrans's principal defense, and it can be overcome in defined ways.
• Serious-injury claims go through the state Government Claims Program, and the claim is due within six months of the crash.

​

What Caltrans Is Responsible For

Caltrans, the California Department of Transportation, owns and maintains the state highway system: the interstates and numbered state routes that carry most of California's traffic. In San Diego County that includes Interstate 5, Interstate 8, Interstate 15, Interstate 805, and state routes such as SR-52, SR-56, SR-67, SR-78, SR-94, SR-125, and SR-163. City streets and most surface roads belong to the city or the county instead.

Identifying the responsible entity is the threshold question, and it is not always obvious. A single corridor can change hands where a state route becomes a city street, and an interchange, on-ramp, or frontage road may fall under a different agency than the freeway beside it. Because presenting a claim to the wrong agency does not preserve it, ownership of the exact location of the crash must be confirmed before anything is filed. The same analysis on local roads is covered in our guide to who is liable for a dangerous San Diego road, and the general framework that applies to every public entity is set out in our guide to suing the government for a dangerous road.

​

The Legal Standard for Holding Caltrans Liable

A claim against Caltrans is governed by Government Code section 835, and the elements a jury must find appear in CACI No. 1100. The injured person must prove that Caltrans owned or controlled the highway, that it was in a dangerous condition, that the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred, and that the condition was a substantial factor in causing the harm. As with any public entity, liability then rests on one of two routes.

Under the first route, a Caltrans employee created the hazard through a negligent or wrongful act committed within the scope of employment, for example a maintenance crew that left a dangerous condition after roadwork. Under the second route, Caltrans had notice of the condition in time to address it. A "dangerous condition" carries the statutory meaning in Government Code section 830 and CACI No. 1102: a condition that creates a substantial, not merely trivial, risk of injury when the highway is used with reasonable care. On a state highway, that typically means a defective interchange or intersection design, an inadequate or missing median barrier or guardrail, a shoulder drop-off, deficient signage, or a known drainage failure. When the hazard is an interchange or intersection, our guide to dangerous intersection accidents explains how liability is sorted out.

​

Proving Notice on the State Highway System

Unless a Caltrans employee created the hazard, the case turns on notice. Government Code section 835.2 and CACI No. 1103 recognize actual notice, where the agency knew of the dangerous condition, and constructive notice, where the condition existed long enough and was obvious enough that a reasonable inspection program would have found it.

Notice on the state system is proven with documents. Collision history at the location is often decisive: California crash data is collected in the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and mapped through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) at U.C. Berkeley, and a pattern of similar crashes at one location supports both that the condition was dangerous and that Caltrans should have known. The agency's own files are obtained through the California Public Records Act: the highway design and as-built plans, traffic and engineering studies, maintenance and inspection records, work orders, and prior complaints about the location. These records are time-sensitive, and obtaining and interpreting them generally requires civil-engineering and accident-reconstruction experts. A San Diego dangerous roadway attorney moves to secure them before they change.

​

Design Immunity: Caltrans's Principal Defense

Caltrans routinely raises design immunity under Government Code section 830.6 and CACI No. 1123. The defense can shield the state from liability for a highway's design where the design was approved in advance by an authorized employee and substantial evidence supports its reasonableness. It is a serious obstacle, but not an absolute one. It can be overcome in three principal ways:

• Failure to warn of a known danger. Even with an approved design, Caltrans retains a duty to warn of a concealed danger the highway creates, and an agency that learns an approved design is producing crashes and fails to warn may lose the protection.
• Loss of design immunity from changed physical conditions. Under CACI No. 1124 and the California Supreme Court's decision in Cornette v. Department of Transportation, immunity is lost when the design has become dangerous because of changed physical conditions, the agency had notice, and it had a reasonable time to correct the condition or warn of it.
• Conditions that do not conform to the approved plan. Immunity protects the design as approved, not deviations from it, so a feature that was not built or maintained as designed falls outside the defense.

​

How to File a Claim Against Caltrans

A claim against the state must be presented before any lawsuit, and the deadline is short. Under Government Code section 911.2, the claim is generally due within six months of the date of the crash, not the two years that applies to ordinary injury claims. A late-claim application is possible within a year but is granted only for limited reasons, and under Government Code section 945.4, no lawsuit may be filed until the claim has been acted on or rejected.

Where the claim is filed depends on the amount:

• Personal-injury claims over $12,500 are presented to the State of California through the Government Claims Program, administered by the Department of General Services. Any serious-injury case belongs here.
• Claims of $12,500 or less may be filed directly with Caltrans on its damage-claim form, the path for minor property damage such as a tire destroyed by a pothole.

Because the deadline is short and the filing rules are technical, a claim against Caltrans is one where obtaining advice within the first weeks materially affects the outcome.

​

How Hulburt Law Firm Can Help

A claim against Caltrans for a dangerous state highway is demanding, and the six-month deadline leaves little margin. Hulburt Law Firm confirms whether Caltrans controlled the road, obtains the collision data and design and maintenance records before they change, retains the engineering experts these cases require, and presents the claim correctly and on time. A San Diego dangerous roadway conditions attorney at our firm can review your case at no cost. Call (619) 821-0500 or message us through our contact form for a free, confidential case review.

‍