San Diego Bus Accident Claims: Legal Guide

In San Diego, a bus crash can trigger multiple legal issues at once: ordinary negligence rules, common-carrier duties, evidence preservation (e.g. bus video and telematics), and California’s Government Claims Act when the bus operator is a public entity.

If you’re an injured passenger, pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, you will need an experienced bus accident attorney to help you identify the right defendants early, meet critical deadlines, and preserve the evidence before it’s too late.

Below is a guide to San Diego bus accident claims and how to protect your claim from day one.

‍

How San Diego bus accident claims differ from car crashes

Bus accident claims in San Diego are legally distinct from typical car crash claims, often involving strict, six-month deadlines, multiple defendants, and time-sensitive evidence requiring legal action to protect your claim.

Public entities and special claim procedures

Many San Diego buses are operated by public entities such as:

• San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS)
• North County Transit District (NCTD)
• Local school districts
• The City or County of San Diego for certain shuttle or paratransit services

Claims against these agencies are governed by the California Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810–996.6). Injury victims generally must:

• File a government claim within 6 months of the incident for personal injury or wrongful death
• Wait for a response or deemed rejection before filing a civil lawsuit

If you do not comply with these requirements, a later lawsuit is usually barred. These rules do not apply in the same way to typical private car‑to‑car collisions.

Multiple parties, complex evidence, and damages rules

Bus cases often involve several potential defendants, including:

• The public agency that owns the bus
• Private contractors that operate routes or provide drivers
• At‑fault third‑party drivers in cars, trucks, or motorcycles
• Vehicle or parts manufacturers in defect cases
• Roadway or construction entities responsible for dangerous conditions

Evidence can include onboard surveillance video, GPS telematics, driver logs, maintenance records, dispatch communications, and company policies that must be preserved quickly before they are overwritten or lost.

A knowledgeable San Diego bus accident attorney can identify whether a bus is public or private, determine which parties and insurance policies may apply, and take early steps to secure critical evidence and meet strict deadlines.

‍

‍

The common carrier standard and passenger safety duties

Under California law, many bus operators are “common carriers” because they transport people for pay. Civil Code sections 2100–2104 require common carriers to use the “utmost care and diligence” for their passengers’ safety, a higher standard than the “ordinary care” that applies to most drivers. This typically includes public transit buses, airport shuttles, private tour and charter coaches, and intercity bus lines serving San Diego.

Heightened duty, but not automatic liability

The common carrier standard does not create automatic or strict liability. An injured passenger must still prove:

• The carrier breached its heightened duty of care
• That breach caused or contributed to the incident
• The passenger suffered compensable damages

Because the duty is so high, conduct that might be considered reasonable for an ordinary driver can be negligent for a bus operator.

Foreseeable harms and passenger conditions

Common carriers must protect passengers from foreseeable harms, including:

• Sudden, unnecessary starts and stops
• Hazards while boarding or getting off
• Poorly controlled crowding and standing passengers
• Rough or aggressive driving that creates unnecessary risks
• Third‑party assaults when violence is reasonably foreseeable (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780)

Issues such as standing passengers, lack of seat belts, overcrowding, and abrupt maneuvers are evaluated against the “utmost care” standard and may still be negligent even if common in transit. Defendants may argue comparative fault if a passenger ignored safety instructions, but the carrier’s elevated obligation remains central.

A San Diego bus accident attorney uses this standard, along with company policies, training materials, video evidence, and expert testimony on safe bus operation, to show how the driver or carrier fell short of the required level of care.

‍

Liability for public transit, school buses, and private bus companies

Public transit (MTS, NCTD) and public entity liability

MTS and NCTD are public entities, so claims are governed by the California Government Claims Act. Public entities are only liable as provided by statute (Gov. Code § 815). They can be held vicariously liable for their employees’ negligence within the scope of employment (Gov. Code § 815.2), such as a bus driver causing a crash.

If a statute imposes a specific mandatory safety duty and the agency fails to carry it out, liability may arise under Gov. Code § 815.6. Some routes are operated by private contractors. In those cases, both the public agency and the contractor can share responsibility, depending on contract terms and control over operations.

School buses and child-specific duties

School districts are also public entities, but the law recognizes heightened duties to protect children. Drivers of other vehicles must stop for school buses displaying flashing red lights and a stop signal arm. (Veh. Code § 22454.) When a driver ignores those signals and a child is hurt, that violation can support negligence per se under Evid. Code § 669.

Potential defendants in school bus cases can include:

• The bus driver
• The school district
• Any private transportation contractor
• Negligent third‑party drivers who strike a bus or student

Because children are especially vulnerable, courts and juries closely examine whether reasonable steps were taken to supervise loading, unloading, and street crossings.

Private charter, tour, and coach companies

Private companies, such as charter buses, tour operators, casino shuttles, and intercity carriers, may be held liable under ordinary negligence, vicarious liability, and common carrier “utmost care” principles. 

An attorney will investigate:

• Ownership and operating contracts
• Driver employment status and training
• Vehicle maintenance and inspection records
• Multiple insurance layers and excess policies

Across all bus types, additional defendants may include at‑fault motorists, vehicle or parts manufacturers, and roadway entities such as the City of San Diego or Caltrans in dangerous condition cases.

‍

Government Claims Act deadlines and procedures for bus injuries

When a bus accident involves a public entity such as MTS, NCTD, a school district, or the City of San Diego, California’s Government Claims Act (Gov. Code §§ 810–996.6) usually requires that you present a written government claim before filing a lawsuit. For personal injury or wrongful death, the standard deadline is 6 months from the date of the incident or death. (Gov. Code § 911.2.) If a timely, proper claim is not presented, a civil lawsuit is generally barred. (Gov. Code § 945.4.)

What the claim must contain and how it must be served

Government Code § 910 requires key information, including:

• The claimant’s name and address
• The date, place, and circumstances of the bus incident
• A description of injuries and damages
• The public employees involved, if known
• The amount claimed, if it is under the statutory threshold

Delivery is equally strict. Under Gov. Code § 915, the claim must be delivered or mailed to the proper clerk, secretary, or auditor of the public entity. Courts have enforced strict compliance, as in DiCampli‑Mintz v. County of Santa Clara (2012) 55 Cal.4th 983 and City of Stockton v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730.

After submission, rejection, and late-claim options

The entity may accept or reject the claim in writing. A written rejection usually triggers a 6‑month deadline to file suit. (Gov. Code § 945.6.) If no written action is taken within the statutory period, the claim may be “deemed rejected,” triggering different limitation rules.

If the 6‑month presentation deadline is missed, a late‑claim application under Gov. Code § 911.4 may be possible, followed by a court petition for relief under § 946.6. Minors and incapacitated persons receive some consideration, but relief is discretionary and not guaranteed.

An experienced San Diego bus accident attorney calculates all applicable deadlines, identifies the correct public entities, prepares compliant claims, ensures proper service, and evaluates whether late‑claim relief is realistically available if time limits are in doubt.

‍

Evidence and investigation in San Diego bus accident cases

Thorough investigation is especially important in bus crashes because so much of the critical evidence is technical and time‑sensitive. Many buses in San Diego carry interior and exterior cameras, audio systems, and electronic control modules that record speed, braking, and steering inputs. They may also use GPS and telematics showing the bus’s exact route, timing, and prior hard‑braking or speeding events. Driver logs, route schedules, dispatch radio or CAD recordings, and incident reports help show whether the driver was rushed, fatigued, or ignoring company rules.

Transit agencies and private carriers often overwrite video and digital data in a matter of days or weeks. If evidence is destroyed after a claimant has requested it, courts may impose sanctions for “spoliation” under California law (see Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215). An experienced San Diego bus accident attorney can quickly send preservation letters and legal hold notices to protect this material before it disappears.

Physical and scene evidence is equally important. Skid marks, debris patterns, damaged guardrails, bus stop placement, faded lane markings, obstructed signs, and malfunctioning traffic signals can support claims of negligent operation or a dangerous condition of public property under Gov. Code § 835. Weather and lighting conditions are documented with photos, measurements, and public records.

Attorneys frequently work with accident reconstructionists, human factors experts, biomechanical engineers, vehicle maintenance experts, and civil or traffic engineers. These specialists use the preserved data and scene evidence to determine how the crash occurred and link rule violations to the injuries suffered.

‍

Dangerous bus stops, roadway design, and public property claims

Under California Government Code § 830, a “dangerous condition of public property” is a condition that creates a substantial (not trivial) risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way. Under § 835, a public entity can be liable if the property was in a dangerous condition, that condition caused the injury, and the entity either created it through a negligent act or had notice in time to fix or warn about it.

How this applies to bus stops and roads

For bus‑related cases, dangerous conditions can include:

• Bus stops placed next to high‑speed traffic with no safe refuge
• Stops that require riders to cross busy roads without crosswalks or signals
• Obstructed sightlines at bus stops, turns, or intersections
• Confusing or missing signage, lane markings, or bus stop markings
• Unsafe road designs, such as overly wide, fast curves near stops

In Bonanno v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 139, the California Supreme Court held that the location of a bus stop itself can be a dangerous condition when it exposes riders to unreasonable traffic risks. In Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639, the Court confirmed that “design immunity” under Gov. Code § 830.6 does not automatically bar a separate claim that the entity failed to warn of a known danger after design approval.

Defenses include design immunity (§ 830.6) and immunities for failing to install or upgrade signals or signs (§§ 830.4, 830.8). Plaintiffs can overcome design immunity by showing that conditions changed, the design became unsafe, or the entity had notice yet failed to warn (§ 835.2). Proving these issues typically requires design plans, maintenance and complaint records, and expert engineering testimony, which an experienced attorney can obtain and analyze.

‍

Third-party drivers, uninsured motorists, and comparative fault

Many San Diego bus crashes involve negligent third‑party drivers in cars, trucks, or motorcycles. Even when a third‑party driver causes or contributes to the collision, the bus company or public entity may still share liability if driver fatigue, inadequate training, speeding, unsafe lane changes, or poor vehicle maintenance played a role.

Comparative fault and multiple defendants

California follows a pure comparative negligence system under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. A jury can assign percentages of fault to every responsible party, including the injured person. Your total damages are calculated, then reduced by your own percentage of fault, but you are not barred from recovery even if you are more than 50% at fault.

Proposition 51, codified at Civil Code § 1431.2, makes defendants:

• Jointly and severally liable for economic damages (medical bills, lost wages)
• Only severally liable for noneconomic damages (pain, emotional distress)

It is critical to identify deep‑pocket defendants, such as public entities or large carriers, to secure full payment of economic losses.

UM/UIM coverage and passenger conduct

If an at‑fault third‑party driver is uninsured or underinsured, a bus passenger may make a claim under their own or a household member’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy under Insurance Code § 11580.2. That coverage can interact with bus insurance and public entity self‑insurance or excess policies. An attorney evaluates all available coverages, including UM/UIM and MedPay, and coordinates them to maximize recovery.

Defendants may argue comparative fault if a passenger did not use an available seat belt, stood in an unsafe area, or ignored driver instructions. A skilled attorney challenges exaggerated blame and uses expert testimony and safety standards to keep any fault allocation as low as possible while maximizing both economic and noneconomic damage claims.

‍

Damages and valuation in California bus accident claims

Types of compensable losses

In a San Diego bus accident case, California law allows recovery for both economic and noneconomic damages. Common categories include:

• Past and future medical expenses
• Past and future lost income and diminished earning capacity
• Pain and suffering
• Emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life
• Loss of consortium for a spouse (loss of companionship and support)
• Property damage, such as a damaged vehicle, phone, or wheelchair

When the defendant is a public entity (for example, a city or school district), punitive damages are not available under Government Code § 818. Against private bus companies, punitive damages may be awarded under Civil Code § 3294 if there is clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice, such as knowingly ignoring serious safety risks.

‍

‍

Medical bills and future needs under California law

Under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541 and Corenbaum v. Lampkin (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1308, an injured person may generally recover only the amounts actually paid or still owed for medical care, not the higher amounts initially billed. This rule can significantly affect case valuation and negotiation.

For serious or permanent injuries, attorneys work with medical experts, life care planners, and vocational experts to project future treatment costs, assistive devices, attendant care, and impact on long‑term earning capacity. An experienced lawyer also gathers admissible evidence of wage loss and medical expenses, addresses Medi‑Cal, Medicare, ERISA, and hospital liens, and negotiates reductions so that the client’s net recovery is maximized within California’s damages rules.

‍

Steps to take after a bus accident in San Diego

1. Get medical care immediately

Your first priority is to be evaluated by medical professionals, either at the scene or as soon as possible afterward. Shock and adrenaline often mask pain, so injuries that seem “minor” can be more serious than they appear. Follow all treatment recommendations and attend follow‑up appointments.

2. Report the incident and gather basic facts

Report the crash to the bus driver and, if appropriate, call 911 so law enforcement can respond. Ask for:

• The incident or police report number
• The bus number, route, and operating agency (MTS, school district, private company, etc.)
• Date, time, and exact location

Note any visible hazards such as missing signs, obstructed views, or defective doors or seats.

3. Safely collect evidence

If you can do so safely, take photographs or video of:

• Vehicle positions and damage
• The bus interior and any broken or loose equipment
• Roadway, bus stop, weather, and lighting conditions

Obtain names and contact information for witnesses and other passengers. Preserve damaged personal items and keep copies of all medical and billing records you receive.

4. Be cautious with insurers and deadlines

Do not provide detailed or recorded statements, or sign medical releases or settlement documents, for any insurance company or public entity adjuster before speaking with an attorney. Statements can be used to minimize or deny your claim.

Claims against public entities typically must be presented within 6 months under the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 911.2), and most personal injury lawsuits must be filed within 2 years (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1). A San Diego bus accident lawyer can immediately work to preserve evidence, identify all liable parties, and start the public entity claim or private insurance process within these strict deadlines.

‍

How the Hulburt Law Firm Can Help

San Diego bus accident cases demand close attention to common carrier duties, public entity rules, technical evidence, and strict filing deadlines. Hulburt Law Firm focuses on serious injury and wrongful death matters and understands how to build cases involving MTS and NCTD buses, school transportation, and private coaches.

If you or a loved one were hurt in a San Diego bus accident, you do not have to sort this out alone. The team at Hulburt Law Firm can review what happened, identify all potential defendants and insurance coverages, and outline your legal options under California law. To learn more, visit the firm’s San Diego bus accident attorney page or contact Hulburt Law Firm directly to discuss your situation.

‍

Further Reading

• Six-Month Claim Deadline After a San Diego Bus Accident

‍