1LAW Logo

Rear-Ended While Holding An Expired Driver's License

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 September 20, 2023

Legal Inquiry

Consumer Legal Issue

I got rear-ended by another person. It's pretty clear it's their fault. However, I have an expired driver's license. What should I do next?

Attorney Answer

The expired license does not take your claim away. California decides who pays for a crash by asking what caused it, not by asking whose paperwork was current. A license that lapsed is a separate problem — a traffic problem — and it belongs in a different conversation than your damage claim. But it is a real problem, and it is the reason to get advice before you give any statement about that day.

Start with the rule that makes a rear-end collision straightforward. Cal. Veh. Code § 21703 provides: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway." A driver who runs into the back of the car in front has almost always violated that section, and that violation supports a finding of negligence. Nothing in it, or in any rule about fault, asks whether the front driver's license was current.

The wider rule is Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a): "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself." California is a pure comparative-fault state: if some share of fault were ever assigned to you, your recovery is reduced by that share and is never wiped out. The California Supreme Court confirmed that system in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), holding that an injured person's recovery is reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury. An expired license, by itself, did not cause a driver behind you to hit you, so it is a poor candidate for any share of fault at all.

The question that actually can shrink a claim is a different one: insurance. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.4(a) bars an injured person from recovering non-economic damages — pain and suffering — where that person owned an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, or was the operator and cannot establish financial responsibility. Economic losses such as medical bills, lost earnings and repair costs are not barred by that section. A license and a policy are different things, so if your car was insured that provision is not triggered by the license problem alone. If it was not insured, that is the issue to raise with a lawyer first.

What you can do

1. Report the crash to your own insurer as your policy requires, and get the claim number.

2. Before you give a recorded statement to the other driver's insurer, or to police about the license, talk to a lawyer. If you were cited, that call should be to a criminal-defense or traffic attorney in your county.

3. Do not write out or send anyone your own account of that day while the license question is unresolved.

4. Keep what already exists: the police report or exchange-of-information slip, photographs of both cars, the repair estimate, and any medical records if you were hurt.

5. Deal with the license separately through the DMV. Renewing it now does not affect who was at fault, and leaving it unresolved can affect you in other ways.

6. See a doctor if you have any symptoms, even mild ones, and keep every record. Gaps in treatment are the most common reason a real injury gets undervalued.

7. Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts, and on how adjusters in your county handle rear-end claims, is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.

⏱ Time limits apply. A claim for injury to you is governed by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, which allows two years, and a claim for the damage to your car by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1), which allows three. Which of those applies to which part of your claim, and exactly when each period began, depends on your facts — do not calculate a date from this page. Have a local attorney review your 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) — California Supreme Court
    Cited for the proposition that an injured person's recovery is reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury — recovery is proportionally reduced, never eliminated. Civ. Code § 1714(a)'s text does not state that consequence, so the sentence that answers this reader's worry needs the holding.

*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

Does an expired driver's license affect a car accident claim in California?

Not on the question of fault. California assigns responsibility for a collision based on what caused it, under Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a), not on whether a driver's license was current. A lapsed license is a separate traffic matter with its own consequences. What can reduce an injury claim is the absence of insurance: Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.4(a) bars non-economic damages for an injured person who owned an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, or who was the operator and cannot establish financial responsibility. Economic losses stay recoverable.

Is the rear driver always at fault in a California rear-end collision?

Usually, but not automatically. Cal. Veh. Code § 21703 prohibits following another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, and a driver who strikes the car ahead has generally violated it, which supports a finding of negligence. It is still a question of fact. Real exceptions come up: a sudden unsignalled stop, a driver who cuts in and brakes, a chain collision where the middle car was pushed, and non-working brake lights. Those are argued on the evidence, not presumed.

Can you still recover in California if you were partly at fault for the crash?

Yes. California is a pure comparative-fault state, so being partly at fault reduces a recovery in proportion to that share and never eliminates it. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) is the statutory root, and in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), the California Supreme Court confirmed the pure comparative system, under which an injured person's recovery is reduced only to the extent that his own lack of reasonable care contributed to his injury.

Privacy Policy Terms of Use Your Privacy Choices