Pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab and a 2-year CCP § 335.1 deadline — plus California-only BIT inspection records that federal FMCSA files don't contain.
California is pure comparative fault, so no percentage of fault bars your recovery from the trucking company. But you only have two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. On top of federal FMCSA regulations, California requires motor carriers to pass a Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) under CHP authority — and those inspection records are discoverable evidence that generalist auto lawyers rarely pursue.
California's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including commercial truck crashes, is two years under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1. The California Supreme Court established pure comparative fault in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), meaning no percentage of fault bars recovery — even a jury finding you 90% responsible leaves the door open to collect 10% from the trucking company. That matters in trucking cases because carriers and their insurers fight hard on fault apportionment, and in California the fight is over the check size, not the right to recover at all.
On top of federal FMCSA rules, California has its own layer of commercial motor vehicle regulation under Cal. Veh. Code § 34500 et seq., enforced by the California Highway Patrol's Motor Carrier Safety Unit. The CHP's Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program, authorized under Cal. Veh. Code § 34501, requires carriers to pass a terminal-level safety inspection every 25 months. Those BIT inspection records are a California-specific source of impeachment evidence — past violations, unsafe ratings, and prior citations — that federal FMCSA files may not capture. A local California truck accident attorney knows to subpoena BIT records early.
A California truck crash case typically pulls in multiple defendants: the driver, the motor carrier under respondeat superior plus direct negligent hiring claims, the tractor and trailer owners if different from the carrier, the cargo loader, the maintenance contractor, and sometimes a component manufacturer. California incorporates the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for intrastate trucking through CHP regulations adopted under Cal. Veh. Code § 34501, which means carrier violations of 49 CFR Parts 390-399 can establish negligence per se in a state court case.
Freight volume on I-5, I-10, I-15, I-710 (Long Beach port corridor), and I-110 creates a constant pipeline of serious truck crashes. Port of Los Angeles / Long Beach container drayage in particular generates heavy commercial traffic driven by drivers often misclassified as independent contractors — a California-specific litigation angle under AB 5 and Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) that can expose the shipper or broker to liability in ways that don't apply in other states.
Legal Information Notice
The legal information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Laws change, and every case is different. Always consult with a licensed attorney in your state to verify the current law and how it applies to your specific situation.
California truck cases involve federal FMCSA regulations (49 CFR Parts 390-399) layered on top of California's own motor carrier rules under Cal. Veh. Code § 34500. Carrier safety violations create documented evidence — hours-of-service logs, BIT inspection reports, driver qualification files — that can establish negligence per se. On top of that, California is an independent-contractor-hostile jurisdiction under Dynamex / AB 5, which frequently allows direct claims against shippers and brokers in port drayage and last-mile delivery cases. A generalist auto lawyer often misses these angles entirely.
Immediately: ELD hours-of-service data (49 CFR Part 395), event data recorder output, dashcam footage, driver qualification file (49 CFR Part 391), post-accident drug/alcohol test results (49 CFR Part 382), pre-trip and post-trip inspection reports (49 CFR § 396.11), and — uniquely for California — the carrier's Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) records from CHP under Cal. Veh. Code § 34501. BIT records can show a pattern of prior safety violations that federal FMCSA files don't capture. Send a spoliation letter within days; carriers destroy non-mandatory records quickly.
Yes. California follows pure comparative fault under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975). No fault percentage bars your recovery — even if you were 80% at fault, you still collect 20% of your damages from the trucking company. The fight in a California truck case is always over how fault is allocated. Insurers will try to maximize your percentage to shrink the check. Counsel's job is to document driver fatigue, carrier hiring failures, maintenance neglect, and cargo-loading errors to pin responsibility on the commercial side.
Interstate carriers follow federal minimums under 49 CFR § 387.9: $750,000 for general freight, $1 million for non-bulk hazmat, and $5 million for bulk hazmat tankers or passenger carriers. California intrastate carriers face additional state insurance requirements set by the California Public Utilities Commission and DMV based on vehicle class, weight, and commodity. Umbrella policies routinely stack on top of the primary motor carrier policy, and in port drayage cases the shipper's or broker's own coverage may also be available.
All legal information on this page is sourced from primary government statutes. Last verified 2026-04-07.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1
2-Year Statute of Limitations (Personal Injury)
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975)
Pure Comparative Fault
Cal. Veh. Code § 34500
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
49 CFR Part 395
Hours of Service & Electronic Logging Devices
49 CFR § 387.9
Minimum Liability Insurance for Motor Carriers
Cal. Veh. Code § 35551
State commercial-vehicle weight and length regime
In-depth articles relevant to your truck accident lawyer case.
Truck Accident vs Car Accident Claims: Key Differences
Understand why truck accident claims are more complex and valuable than car accidents. Multiple liable parties, federal regulations, and more.
How Long Does a Personal Injury Case Take? (2026 Timeline)
Understand the typical timeline of a personal injury case from filing to settlement. Learn what factors speed up or delay your claim.
How to Deal With Insurance Companies After an Accident (2026 Guide)
Learn how to deal with insurance adjusters after an accident. Avoid common traps, protect your claim, and maximize your settlement.
Different type of accident? We connect victims with attorneys across all six practice areas.
Collected by partner attorneys for injured clients. California and Pennsylvania reviews prioritized.
“After my crash, I did not know whether to talk to the insurance company first or get treatment documented. The attorney explained the timeline and what evidence mattered.”
— California accident review, Los Angeles, CA
“I did not understand Pennsylvania limited tort or why the adjuster kept asking about my policy. Getting matched with someone local helped me know what questions to ask.”
— Pennsylvania accident review, Philadelphia, PA
Informational only. GetAccidentLawyerNow is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Every case is unique.
Don't wait. The 2 years statute of limitations is ticking.
Call (267) 212-1034 Now*Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.