1LAW Logo

Claiming Against A Public Entity After An E-Bike Road Crash

Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.

JV

Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*

Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed August 8, 2024

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

I was riding my electric bike and then I came across these "bumps" on the road, which I ran over, which made me lose control over the bike, making me fall down. This led me with injuries on myself, and damage on my bike estimated to be about 300+.

Attorney Answer

Both halves of this — your injuries and the bike — go into one claim, and if the road belongs to a public entity you have six months to present it, not two years and not three. That deadline is the part of your situation that can go wrong on its own.

Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) requires a claim for death or for injury to a person or to personal property against a public entity to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues. Read that phrase carefully: injury to person or to personal property. Your bike is personal property, so the roughly $300 of damage rides on the same six-month clock as the injuries. Against a private defendant it would be different — Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1) gives three years for injuring goods or chattels, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 gives two years for personal injury. Against a public entity, six months covers both.

The first practical problem is identifying the entity. A city street, a county road and a state highway are each maintained by a different body, and presenting a claim to the wrong one does not preserve anything. If you are unsure, that is a question for a local attorney before the clock runs, not after.

The second is what the "bumps" actually were. A claim against a public entity for an injury caused by the condition of its property has its own statutory elements, including that the entity knew or should have known about the danger with time to fix it. If the feature was a failure in the pavement, that is one case. If it was something installed on purpose, a public entity has statutory defenses about approved designs that do not exist for private defendants. Neither of those is something to work out from the saddle — photographs and records decide it.

On what you can recover, Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 sets the measure: "For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not." That covers the repair or replacement of the bike as well as the harm to you.

And expect to be told you were riding too fast or should have seen them. That argument reduces a claim in California rather than ending it: applying Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a), the Supreme Court in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), described a pure comparative system in which a plaintiff's recovery is reduced only to the extent his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury.

What you can do

1. Go back and photograph the road feature now, from several angles, with something in frame for scale, plus any markings, signs or paint near it. Note the date and the nearest cross streets.

2. Photograph the bike's damage before repairing it, and keep the repair estimate or receipt.

3. Get checked by a doctor and say you came off an electric bike, so the cause is in the record. Keep every bill.

4. Ask the city or county for its claim form and present a written claim covering both the injuries and the bike. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) gives six months from accrual, and there is no fee to present it.

5. Request, in writing, any prior complaints, work orders, inspection records or repair history for that section of roadway.

6. Ask a local attorney which entity maintains that road and whether the feature was a defect or an installed device.

Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.

⏱ Time limits apply. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) is the deadline that matters: six months from accrual to present the claim to the public entity, covering the injuries and the bike together. If a private party turns out to be responsible instead, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1's two years and § 338(c)(1)'s three years apply. Which is which depends on your facts, so have a local attorney check the dates now.

Cases Cited

Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.

  • Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978) — Cal. Supreme Court
    Pure comparative negligence — recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's own want of care rather than barred. Cited because the obvious defense is that the rider should have avoided a visible hazard, and § 1714(a)'s text does not state the proportional rule.

*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.

By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Courts & Legal Aid in California

Frequently Asked Questions

Is property damage included in a California government claim, or only injuries?

Both. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2(a) requires a claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property against a public entity to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues. Damage to a bicycle, a vehicle or other belongings falls inside that language and runs on the same six-month clock as an injury claim. Against a private defendant the periods are longer and different: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1) allows three years for injuring goods or chattels, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 allows two years for personal injury.

Who is responsible for injuries caused by a defect in a California road?

Whichever body maintains that stretch of road — a city, a county, or the state for a highway — which is why identifying the right entity comes before anything else, since presenting a claim to the wrong one preserves nothing. A claim against a public entity for the condition of its property has its own statutory elements, including that the entity knew or should have known of the danger with time to correct it, so prior complaints, work orders and inspection records matter. Public entities also have statutory defenses concerning approved designs that private defendants do not have, which makes it important to establish whether a feature was a defect or something installed deliberately.

Does a cyclist lose a claim for running over a hazard they could have seen?

No. California apportions fault instead of using it as a bar. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) makes everyone responsible for an injury occasioned to another by a want of ordinary care in the management of their property, and in applying that section the California Supreme Court in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), described a pure comparative system in which a plaintiff's recovery is reduced only to the extent his own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. Speed, lighting, visibility and the size of the hazard all bear on the division of fault rather than on whether a claim exists.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices