Suing a Business and a Surgeon for the Same Injury

Attorney Answer

Yes. Those are two separate claims, and California law lets you pursue both at the same time.

The fall and the surgery are different acts by different people, so they create different causes of action. They can be brought together or separately, and one attorney can handle both if that attorney does both kinds of work.

The claim against the business is ordinary negligence. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) makes everyone responsible for an injury occasioned to another by want of ordinary care in the management of his or her property or person. For a business, that means keeping its lot and walkways reasonably safe and warning about hazards that are not obvious. A parking stop is a common feature, so expect the business to argue that it was plainly visible. That argument does not end the claim. California uses pure comparative fault: a share of responsibility reduces recovery in proportion and does not eliminate it (Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a); Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978)).

The claim against the surgeon asks a different question: whether the placement of the screw fell below the standard of care of a reasonably careful surgeon. That normally turns on a qualified physician's review of the imaging and the operative report, not on the fact that the result was bad.

The two claims also overlap in a way that helps you. In Henry v. Superior Court, 160 Cal. App. 4th 440 (2008), the court explained that the original wrongdoer's liability for harm made worse by negligent medical care rests on that wrongdoer's own culpable conduct and stands as a separate basis of liability. In practice, the business can be answerable for the course of harm that followed the fall, including the added damage, while the surgeon answers for the surgical care itself.

One caution about value. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2 caps noneconomic damages — pain and suffering — against health care providers. The statute sets a base figure that increases by a fixed amount every January 1 for ten years, so the figure that applies depends on the year involved; do not rely on any single number you see quoted. The claim against the business is not subject to that cap.

What you can do

1. Request the complete records: the operative report, the post-operative imaging, and the chart from every provider who has treated the wrist.

2. Photograph the parking stop and the area around it, including lighting and any paint or markings, and keep any incident report the business gave you.

3. Write down the contact information for anyone who saw the fall or heard what the business said afterward.

4. Ask a local attorney who handles both premises liability and medical malpractice whether to bring the two claims in one case or in separate cases. That is a strategic choice with real consequences, not a form question.

5. Ask that attorney about the pre-suit steps Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 364 requires before a medical malpractice complaint can be filed.

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

⏱ Time limits apply. Two clocks run here, and they are not the same. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 sets two years for a personal injury claim such as the fall. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5 governs the claim against the surgeon: three years after the date of injury, or one year after the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered, whichever comes first. Which events start those clocks depends on your facts, and the malpractice clock is often the shorter one. Have a local attorney review the actual dates now rather than later.