PERSONAL INJURY | 2026-10-11

Suing a Public Entity in California: The Government Claims Act and Its Unforgiving Six-Month Deadline

If a city bus, a county vehicle, a dangerous road, or a government employee injured you, you cannot simply file a lawsuit. California’s Government Claims Act requires you to present a written claim to the public entity first — usually within six months — and missing that deadline can end your case before it begins.

Most injury victims have two years to file a lawsuit in California. But if the party that injured you is a public entity — a city, county, school district, transit agency, or the state — a very different and much shorter clock controls. Under California’s Government Claims Act (Government Code §§ 81

When the government injures you, the law treats your claim differently from an ordinary injury case. Public entities enjoy a measure of immunity, and the Legislature has conditioned the right to sue them on strict procedural prerequisites. The most important is the claim-presentation requirement: before a lawsuit, the injured person must formally notify the public entity of the claim, within a short window, giving the entity a chance to investigate and settle. This requirement is not a technicality the courts overlook — it is a substantive condition of the right to sue, and failing it is one of the surest ways a meritorious case is lost.

What Counts as a Public Entity

The Government Claims Act applies to claims against public entities and their employees. "Public entity" is defined broadly to include the State of California, counties, cities, school districts, community college districts, special districts, transit and transportation agencies, and other public agencies. This sweeps in a huge range of defendants: a city whose bus caused a crash, a county responsible for a dangerous intersection, a school district where a child was hurt, a transit authority operating a light-rail line, a public hospital, and the drivers and other employees of all of these. If any defendant in your potential case is a government body or a government employee acting in the scope of employment, the Act's requirements almost certainly apply — and because serious accidents often involve a mix of public and private defendants, it is easy to overlook a government defendant until the short deadline has nearly run.

The Claim-Presentation Requirement

Under Government Code § 945.4, a person generally may not sue a public entity for money or damages until a written claim has been presented to the entity and the entity has acted on or rejected it. The claim must be presented to the correct entity in the manner the statute prescribes (Gov. Code § 915), and it must contain specified information: the claimant's name and address, the date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence, a general description of the injury or loss, the names of the public employees who caused it (if known), and the amount claimed. The purpose is to give the public entity timely notice and an opportunity to investigate and resolve the claim before litigation. A claim that omits required information, or is sent to the wrong office, can be deemed insufficient — so getting the content and delivery right matters as much as meeting the deadline.

The Six-Month Deadline

The deadline is the heart of the trap. Under Government Code § 911.2, a claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property must be presented within six months after the cause of action accrues. (Claims relating to other causes of action, such as some property or contract claims, generally have a longer period — up to one year — but personal-injury and wrongful-death claims get the six-month rule.) Six months is dramatically shorter than the ordinary two-year statute of limitations for personal injury, and the clock starts at accrual, which is usually the date of the injury. This is why an injured person who assumes they have "two years to deal with it" can forfeit a claim against a public entity within months. The short deadline is deliberate — it reflects the Legislature's judgment that the government should get prompt notice — but it is unforgiving in practice.

What Happens After the Claim Is Presented

Once a claim is presented, the public entity has a period (generally 45 days) to act on it — to accept, reject, or compromise it — and the entity often rejects it. The rejection triggers a new, separate deadline to file the lawsuit. Under Government Code § 945.6, if the entity gives proper written notice of rejection, the injured person generally has only six months from that notice to file suit; if the entity gives no proper notice, a longer period (up to two years from accrual) may apply. This two-step structure — present the claim, then sue within a short window after rejection — creates multiple deadlines, each capable of ending the case. An injured person must track both the claim deadline and the post-rejection suit deadline carefully, because satisfying the first does not relieve the second.

Late-Claim Relief

Missing the six-month deadline is not always fatal, but the path back is narrow. Under Government Code § 911.4, a person who fails to present a timely claim may apply to the public entity for leave to present a late claim, and the application must itself be made within a reasonable time, not exceeding one year after accrual. The entity may grant the application on specified grounds — for example, that the failure was through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or that the claimant was a minor or was incapacitated during the six-month period. If the entity denies the late-claim application, the claimant may petition the court for relief under Government Code § 946.6. These mechanisms provide a safety valve, but they are discretionary, fact-dependent, and themselves governed by deadlines (notably the one-year outer limit). Relying on late-claim relief is far riskier than simply meeting the original six-month deadline, which is why prompt action is always the better course.

Dangerous Conditions of Public Property

A major category of claims against public entities involves dangerous conditions of public property — a defectively designed intersection, a hidden hazard on a sidewalk, inadequate signage, or a poorly maintained public facility. Because public entities are generally not liable except as provided by statute (Gov. Code § 815 abolishes common-law tort liability for public entities), these claims proceed under a specific statute, Government Code § 835, which imposes liability for injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred and the entity either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it in time to protect against it. Dangerous-condition cases are both substantively and procedurally demanding: they require proving the elements of § 835 and satisfying the Government Claims Act's presentation requirements. They also frequently turn on design-immunity defenses, notice, and causation — making early investigation and expert evaluation important. The six-month claim deadline applies to these cases just as it does to vehicle-collision claims.

How Public Entities Can Be Liable at All

Because Government Code § 815 abolishes common-law tort liability for public entities, a plaintiff must anchor every claim in a statute that authorizes liability. The most common basis is vicarious liability under Government Code § 815.2, which makes a public entity liable for injuries caused by the acts or omissions of its employees within the scope of employment to the same extent the employee would be liable. This is the route for most government-vehicle collisions: the public employee driver is negligent, and the entity answers for that negligence. A second major basis is the dangerous-condition statute, Government Code § 835, discussed above. Other statutes impose or limit liability for specific situations. The key point for an injured person is that there must be a statutory hook — you cannot simply allege that the government was "negligent" in the abstract and expect liability to follow as it would against a private defendant. Identifying the correct statutory basis early shapes both the claim you present and the lawsuit you later file, and it determines what you must ultimately prove.

Immunities That Still Apply

Even when a statutory basis for liability exists and the claim is timely presented, public entities enjoy a range of immunities that private defendants do not. Government Code § 820.2 provides discretionary immunity for injuries resulting from an employee's exercise of discretion vested in the employee, which can shield certain policy-level decisions (though it does not protect ordinary operational negligence like careless driving). In dangerous-condition cases, design immunity under Government Code § 830.6 can protect a public entity from liability for a condition created in conformity with a plan or design approved in advance by the appropriate body, if the design was reasonable — a defense that frequently arises in roadway-design cases and that the entity bears the burden of establishing. There are additional immunities for specific functions. These immunities mean that suing a public entity is not just procedurally harder but substantively harder: a plaintiff must both satisfy the claim-presentation rules and overcome the immunities the entity may invoke. Understanding which immunities apply to a given case is essential to evaluating it realistically and to developing the evidence needed to defeat an immunity defense where one exists.

Common Mistakes That Forfeit Claims

Several recurring errors cause injured Californians to lose otherwise-valid claims against public entities. The most common is simply not recognizing a government defendant in time — treating a crash with a transit bus or a fall on a public walkway like an ordinary private case and letting six months slip by. Another is presenting a defective claim — omitting required information or sending it to the wrong entity or office. A third is misjudging accrual, especially where an injury or its cause is not immediately apparent. A fourth is missing the post-rejection suit deadline under § 945.6 after correctly presenting the claim, on the mistaken assumption that the two-year limitations period still applies. And a fifth is assuming late-claim relief will be available and therefore delaying. Each of these is avoidable with prompt, informed action. Because the consequences are so severe — a complete bar to recovery — anyone injured by a government entity should treat the matter as urgent from the start.

What California Injury Victims Should Do

If you were injured in a situation that might involve a public entity — a government vehicle, a public road or sidewalk, a public building, a school, a transit system, or a government employee — assume the Government Claims Act applies and act immediately. Identify every potential defendant, including government bodies that may not be obvious. Preserve evidence of the incident and your injuries. Calendar the six-month deadline from the date of injury and do not wait for it to approach. Prepare a complete, accurate claim with all required information and present it to the correct entity in the prescribed manner. Then track the entity's response and the post-rejection suit deadline. Because the rules are technical and the deadlines short and overlapping, and because a single misstep can bar an otherwise strong case, injured Californians should get legal advice as early as possible — ideally within days or weeks of the injury, not months. The right action taken promptly preserves the claim; delay is the enemy.

It bears repeating because the stakes are so high: the single most important thing an injured person can do when a public entity may be involved is to treat the matter with urgency from day one. Against a private defendant, a few months of delay rarely forfeits a case; against the government, it routinely does. The six-month claim deadline, the specific content and delivery requirements, the short post-rejection suit deadline, the narrow late-claim relief, and the statutory immunities together make claims against public entities a field where procedure is as decisive as the merits. A strong case — a clearly negligent government driver, an obviously dangerous public condition — can be lost entirely by missing a deadline that an ordinary injury victim would never have to worry about. That asymmetry is exactly why early legal guidance pays for itself many times over in these cases: it ensures the claim is recognized, framed, and presented correctly while there is still time to do so, rather than discovered to be barred after it is too late to fix.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I really have only six months to act after a government injury?

For death or injury to person or personal property, yes — Government Code § 911.2 requires presenting a written claim to the public entity within six months of accrual (usually the injury date). This is much shorter than the ordinary two-year personal-injury statute of limitations.

Who does the Government Claims Act apply to?

Claims against public entities — the State, counties, cities, school and community college districts, special districts, transit agencies, public hospitals — and their employees acting in the scope of employment. If any defendant is a government body or government employee, the Act's requirements almost certainly apply.

What must the claim contain?

Specified information under the statute: the claimant's name and address, the date, place, and circumstances of the occurrence, a general description of the injury or loss, the names of the public employees involved if known, and the amount claimed. It must be presented to the correct entity in the prescribed manner. Omissions or misdelivery can render it insufficient.

What happens after I present the claim?

The entity generally has 45 days to act, and often rejects the claim. Under Government Code § 945.6, if it gives proper written notice of rejection, you generally have only six months from that notice to file suit; without proper notice, a longer period may apply. You must track both deadlines.

What if I missed the six-month deadline?

You may apply to the entity for leave to present a late claim under Government Code § 911.4, within a reasonable time not exceeding one year after accrual, on grounds such as mistake, excusable neglect, minority, or incapacity. If denied, you may petition the court under § 946.6. But this relief is discretionary and risky — meeting the original deadline is far safer.

How do claims for dangerous public property work?

Because public entities are generally liable only as provided by statute, these claims proceed under Government Code § 835, which requires a dangerous condition creating a reasonably foreseeable risk, plus the entity's creation of or notice of the condition. The six-month claim-presentation deadline applies to these cases too.

Why is the deadline so short?

The Legislature imposed the short claim period to give public entities prompt notice and a chance to investigate and settle before litigation. Whatever its rationale, it is strictly enforced, and courts treat the claim-presentation requirement as a substantive condition of the right to sue the government.

I was hurt by a city or county. What should I do now?

Treat it as urgent. Identify all government defendants, preserve evidence, calendar the six-month deadline from the injury date, and prepare a complete claim. Because a single misstep can bar your case, get legal advice within days or weeks, not months. Call Trembach Law Firm at (213) 645-2246.

Talk to a California Injury Lawyer About a Claim Against the Government

If a public entity or a government employee injured you, the ordinary rules do not apply — the Government Claims Act requires a written claim within six months, and missing that deadline can bar your case entirely. Trembach Law Firm, led by Anatolii Trembach (admitted in California), prepares and timely presents government claims, pursues late-claim relief where available, and litigates dangerous-condition and public-vehicle cases so that injured Californians do not lose a valid claim to a procedural trap. Call (213) 645-2246 as soon as possible — these deadlines do not wait.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301