California Tort Reform laws determine how much time you have to file a mass tort claim, whether your state caps the damages you can recover, and how your own fault percentage affects your payout.
This California tort reform guide covers every rule that matters if you are considering a mass tort lawsuit — statute of limitations deadlines, damage caps, comparative fault, and which major active lawsuits affect California residents the most. Understanding California tort reform before you talk to a lawyer helps you know what to expect.
Verified against California statutes and official sources as of May 2026.
In This California Tort Reform Guide:
California Tort Reform Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations is the deadline to file a lawsuit. Under California tort reform rules, the time limit depends on the type of injury. Missing your deadline means you lose your right to sue entirely, regardless of how strong your case may be.
| Injury Type | Time Limit |
|---|---|
| Personal Injury | 2 years from the date of injury under California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. |
| Wrongful Death | 2 years from the date of death under CCP section 335.1. |
| Product Liability | 2 years from the date of injury under CCP section 335.1, subject to the discovery rule. |
| Medical Malpractice | 3 years from the date of injury OR 1 year from the date the patient discovers or should have discovered the injury, whichever comes first, under CCP section 340.5. |
Personal injury details: For claims against government entities, a tort claim must be filed within 6 months. For minors, the 2-year clock generally does not begin until they turn 18.
Wrongful death details: Medical malpractice wrongful death has a special rule: 1 year from discovery of negligence or 3 years from the date of death, whichever comes first. Claims against government entities require a tort claim filed within 6 months.
Product liability details: Property damage from defective products has a 3-year statute of limitations from discovery of the damage.
Medical malpractice details: A 90-day pre-suit notice of intent to sue is required under CCP section 364. If notice is served within 90 days of the SOL expiration, the deadline is extended by 90 days. For minors under 6, the SOL is extended to the child’s 8th birthday. Claims against government entities require a 6-month tort claim filing.
Discovery rule: YES. California applies a discovery rule that starts the statute of limitations clock when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the injury and its cause. This applies to personal injury, product liability, and medical malpractice claims. The discovery rule is particularly important in latent injury cases such as toxic exposure and defective medical devices.
Statute of repose: 10 years for construction and real property improvements under CCP section 337.15, measured from substantial completion of the improvement. Applies only to latent deficiencies in design, specification, surveying, planning, supervision, or construction of improvements to real property. California does NOT have a statute of repose for general consumer product liability claims.
These California tort reform deadlines apply to most mass tort claims. However, some MDLs have their own rules — for example, the Camp Lejeune Justice Act created a special two-year filing window.
Always verify your specific deadline with a licensed attorney, as California tort reform statutes may have exceptions not listed here.
California Tort Reform Damage Caps
Damage caps limit how much money you can recover in a lawsuit, even if a jury awards you more. California tort reform damage cap rules affect mass tort settlements and verdicts directly.
Understanding these limits helps you set realistic expectations for potential compensation under California tort reform law.
| Damage Type | Cap |
|---|---|
| Non-Economic (Pain & Suffering) | NO CAP on non-economic damages in general personal injury cases. |
| Punitive Damages | NO CAP. |
| Total Damages | NO CAP on total damages in general tort cases. |
| Medical Malpractice | YES. |
Non-economic damages details: California does not cap compensatory damages (economic or non-economic) in standard tort cases outside of medical malpractice.
Punitive damages details: California Civil Code section 3294 does not impose a statutory cap on punitive damages. Instead, California courts apply constitutional due process proportionality analysis on a case-by-case basis, evaluating the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. The US Supreme Court has suggested single-digit ratios are generally appropriate but California has no fixed multiplier or cap.
Medical malpractice cap details: Under MICRA as amended by AB 35 (2022), California caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. In 2026, the cap is 470000 per defendant category for non-death cases and 650000 per defendant category for wrongful death cases. Three separate defendant categories exist (healthcare providers, healthcare institutions, unaffiliated providers/institutions), so the effective cap can be multiplied across categories. The cap increases 40000 per year for injury cases and 50000 per year for death cases until 2033, then adjusts 2 percent annually for inflation starting 2034.
The cap reaches 750000 (injury) and 1000000 (death) per category in 2033. There is NO cap on economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) in medical malpractice cases. These caps are fixed scheduled amounts, not inflation-adjusted until 2034.
California tort reform caps can significantly reduce your recovery in a mass tort case. If California caps non-economic damages, your pain and suffering award is limited regardless of injury severity.
Some caps have been challenged as unconstitutional in California courts — check with a local attorney for the current status of any California tort reform cap.
California Tort Reform Comparative Fault Rule
Comparative fault determines whether you can recover damages if you share some responsibility for your injuries. Under California tort reform rules, defendants in mass tort cases often argue that the plaintiff contributed to their own harm (for example, by continuing to use a product after a recall).
📨 Get Free Mass Tort Guides Alerts
Free · No spam · Unsubscribe anytime
California follows a pure comparative fault system. This means you can recover damages even if you are mostly at fault for your injuries. However, your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if you are found 70% at fault and your damages are $100,000, you would recover $30,000.
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but never eliminated. If a plaintiff is 30 percent at fault, they recover 70 percent of damages. If 50 percent at fault, they recover 50 percent. If 51 percent at fault, they still recover 49 percent. Even a plaintiff 99 percent at fault can recover 1 percent of damages. There is no threshold that bars recovery entirely.
Joint and several liability: Modified joint and several liability under Proposition 51 (Fair Responsibility Act of 1986), codified in CCP section 1431.2. Each defendant is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, etc.) regardless of their percentage of fault. However, each defendant is only severally liable for non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress) in proportion to their percentage of fault.
Exception: defendants liable for intentional torts may be held jointly and severally liable for 100 percent of all damages including non-economic, per B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020).
Notable California Mass Tort Verdicts & Settlements
1) Talcum Powder verdict in California (October 2025) – 966 million awarded to family of woman who died from mesothelioma linked to asbestos-contaminated Johnson and Johnson talc products. 2) Social media addiction trial – K.G.M. v. Meta and Google (March 2026) – First bellwether trial in California involving a 20-year-old California woman alleging Instagram and YouTube addiction caused severe depression anxiety and suicidal ideation as a minor.
3) Roundup – California appeals court upheld 28 million verdict for Mike Dennis who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after decades of Roundup use. Separately Bayer proposed 7.25 billion global Roundup settlement with preliminary approval from a California federal judge in March 2026.
Note: Individual settlement and verdict amounts vary dramatically based on the specific facts of each case. These examples are provided for general context only and do not predict what you might recover.
Active Mass Tort Cases Affecting California Residents
Several major active Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) cases have significant numbers of plaintiffs from California:
1) Roundup/Monsanto – California is the birthplace of Roundup litigation with thousands of California agricultural workers gardeners and homeowners among plaintiffs and multiple bellwether trials held in California state and federal courts. 2) Social media addiction – Active bellwether trials in California federal court with California plaintiffs, the social media companies are headquartered in California. 3) Talcum powder/Johnson and Johnson – Significant California plaintiff population with multiple California verdicts including the 966 million October 2025 verdict.
4) AFFF/PFAS – California has numerous military bases and fire training facilities with PFAS contamination affecting water supplies across the state. 5) Opioids – California Attorney General secured multi-billion dollar settlements from Purdue Pharma, Johnson and Johnson, distributors, and pharmacies, with California receiving substantial settlement funds for treatment and prevention programs.
If you live in California and were affected by any of these products or exposures, you may be eligible to file a claim. California tort reform deadlines and damage caps still apply to your case, so check our individual MDL pages for specific eligibility criteria.
California Tort Reform Legislation
1) MICRA – Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (1975) – Original law capping medical malpractice non-economic damages at 250000. 2) AB 35 (2022) – Modernized MICRA by raising non-economic damage caps from 250000 to 350000 (injury) and 500000 (death) starting January 1 2023, with annual increases until reaching 750000 and 1000000 in 2033, then 2 percent annual inflation adjustment.
Created three separate defendant categories each with independent caps. Restructured attorney contingency fee tiers. 3) Proposition 51 – Fair Responsibility Act (1986) – Modified joint and several liability so defendants pay non-economic damages only in proportion to their fault while remaining jointly liable for economic damages.
4) AB 1056 – Asbestos Tort Trust Transparency Act – Requires plaintiffs in asbestos cases to disclose all asbestos trust claims and produce all trust claim documents. 5) SB 447 (2022 made permanent 2024) – Allows recovery of pain suffering and disfigurement damages in survival actions, which were previously barred.
These California tort reform laws directly affect how mass tort claims are filed, what damages you can recover, and how long you have to act.
Always verify the current status of any law with the California State Bar Association or a licensed attorney.
Additional California Tort Rules
1) Medical malpractice pre-suit notice: CCP section 364 requires 90-day notice of intent to sue before filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. If notice is served within 90 days of SOL expiration the deadline extends 90 days. 2) Government tort claims: Claims against government entities must be filed within 6 months of injury under the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 810-996).
Lawsuit cannot be filed until claim is denied or deemed denied. 3) Asbestos Trust Transparency: Plaintiffs in asbestos tort actions must disclose all asbestos trust claims and produce all trust claim documents.
Courts may stay actions or deny trial preferences for noncompliance. San Francisco Superior Court has a dedicated Asbestos Department. 4) Survival action damages: SB 447 (originally 2022, made permanent in 2024) allows recovery of non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and disfigurement in survival actions. 5) Strict product liability: California follows strict liability for defective products under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963), one of the first states to adopt this doctrine. 6) Proposition 213: Uninsured motorists cannot recover non-economic damages in auto accident cases.
California Tort Reform Resources & Contacts
- California State Bar Association: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/
- California Attorney General: https://oag.ca.gov/
- California Courts: https://courts.ca.gov/
- JPML (Federal MDL Data): jpml.uscourts.gov
- NCSL Tort Reform Tracker: ncsl.org
- Cornell LII — Tort Law: law.cornell.edu
This California tort reform guide was last verified against official sources in May 2026. If you notice outdated information, please contact us.
Related Mass Tort Guides
- All Active MDL Cases
- All 50 State Tort Reform Guides
- Mass Tort Explainers
- Mass Tort vs Class Action Comparisons
- Mass Tort Tips
Attorney Advertising. The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by accessing or using this content. Every case is unique, and results depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Past settlement amounts and case outcomes do not guarantee similar results in your case. If you believe you have a legal claim, you should consult with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction who can evaluate your specific situation.