If a government agency caused your injury — a city bus, a poorly maintained road, a trench or excavation in a public street, a public vehicle, or a dangerous condition on public property — the rules that protect your right to compensation are completely different from an ordinary injury claim, and the clock runs far faster. In most California injury cases you have two years to file a lawsuit. When a public entity is responsible, you generally have just six months to file a formal claim before you lose the right to sue at all. As a San Francisco personal injury attorney who has handled claims against public entities since 2009, I want you to understand both this deadline and how these cases are actually built and won — because more strong cases are lost to the six-month rule, and to a weak investigation, than to almost anything else in California injury law.
What the California Government Claims Act Is
You cannot sue a California city, county, state agency, or public district the same way you sue a private driver or business. The California Government Claims Act (Government Code section 810 and following) requires you to first present a written claim directly to the responsible public entity — and to do it within a strict deadline — before you are ever allowed to file a lawsuit. Under Government Code section 945.4, if you do not present a proper claim first, your lawsuit is barred, no matter how serious your injury or how clear the entity’s fault.
The Six-Month Deadline — The Single Most Important Rule
Under Government Code section 911.2, a claim for personal injury (or for injury to personal property or a wrongful death) must be presented to the public entity within six months of the date of the injury. Claims for other kinds of harm — such as damage to real property or breach of contract — generally have one year. But for the injury cases most people face, the deadline is six months, not the two years they assume they have.
Missing this deadline can permanently bar an otherwise strong case. This is why, if there is any possibility a government entity was involved in your injury, the worst thing you can do is wait to see how you heal before calling a lawyer.
How to File a Claim Against the City and County of San Francisco
In San Francisco, a claim against the City is filed on a specific form with the Controller’s Office Claims Division, as required under California Government Code sections 905 and 915. The City provides the official San Francisco claim form and filing instructions through the City Attorney’s Office, and the same six-month deadline applies. The form asks for the date, place, and circumstances of the injury, a description of the harm, and the amount claimed — and a claim that is incomplete, or filed with the wrong office, can be rejected before anyone evaluates how badly you were hurt. Other cities, counties, and agencies (for example Caltrans, BART, or a school district) each have their own claim form and filing address, which is one more reason to identify the correct entity early.
Who Counts as a “Public Entity”
The six-month rule reaches a much broader set of defendants than most people realize. A public entity can include:
- Cities and counties, including the City and County of San Francisco.
- Transit agencies such as SF Muni and BART.
- The State of California and its agencies, including Caltrans, which maintains state highways and bridges.
- Public school districts, community colleges, and public universities.
- Special districts, public utilities, public hospitals, and other public authorities.
If a vehicle, a roadway, a sidewalk, a building, a public utility project, or an employee connected to any of these caused your injury, you are very likely inside the Government Claims Act — and inside the six-month clock.
Common Cases Against Public Entities
- Public transit collisions. Crashes involving a Muni bus or light-rail vehicle, a BART train, or a school bus fall squarely under the Act.
- Dangerous conditions of public property. Under Government Code section 835, a public entity can be liable when a dangerous condition of its property — a broken sidewalk, a hidden road defect, an unguarded trench, a poorly designed intersection — caused the injury, if the entity created the condition or had notice of it and failed to fix it.
- Street excavation and utility work. Trenches, plates, and pavement left in a dangerous condition during city utility or excavation work, often performed by a private contractor under a city permit — creating potential liability for both the entity and the contractor.
- Government vehicles and employees. A crash caused by a city truck, a police or utility vehicle, or any public employee acting on the job.
- Roadway and bridge defects. Dangerous conditions on state highways and structures maintained by Caltrans, an issue I address in my guide to roadway liability and bridge accidents.
Serious cases — including commercial truck and brain injury cases — frequently involve a public entity somewhere in the chain of responsibility, which is exactly why the six-month deadline has to be identified early.
How I Investigate a Public Entity Case Before I File
Winning a case against a government entity is not just about meeting the deadline — it is about building proof the entity would rather you never see. Long before filing suit, I use California’s public records laws to obtain the documents that show what the entity knew and when it knew it. Under the California Public Records Act (Government Code sections 7920.000 and following), and San Francisco’s own Sunshine Ordinance, a public agency must produce a wide range of records on request. In my public entity cases I routinely request:
- Permits — including street excavation and encroachment permits — that identify exactly who was authorized to work in the roadway, and when.
- Inspection reports, maintenance logs, and work orders for the location.
- Prior complaints, 311 reports, and prior-incident history for the same hazard or intersection.
- Daily work reports, contracts, and correspondence between the agency and any private contractor.
Because the responsible records are often spread across several departments, I send targeted requests to each one — for example, a city attorney’s office, a public works department, and a public utilities agency — rather than assuming a single office holds everything. When city utility or excavation work is involved, the excavation permit frequently reveals a private contractor working under the city’s authority, which can open a second, separate avenue of liability alongside the public entity itself.
Proving Notice: The Heart of a Dangerous-Condition Case
In a dangerous-condition case under Government Code section 835, the entity is generally only liable if it created the hazard or had actual or constructive notice of it and a reasonable time to fix it. Notice is where these cases are won or lost — and it is exactly what the public records above are designed to establish. Prior complaints and 311 reports show the agency was told about the hazard. Inspection logs and work orders show what it did, or failed to do, in response. Permit and contract records show who created the condition in the first place. Assembling this paper trail early, while the records still exist, is often the difference between a case the entity takes seriously and one it moves to dismiss.
Targeted Discovery That Holds a Public Entity Accountable
Once suit is filed, public entities do not volunteer the truth — they respond to precise, well-built discovery. I serve detailed, targeted written discovery tailored to the specific agency and hazard: special interrogatories that pin the entity down on exactly what it inspected, maintained, and knew; requests for production for the internal records that back up (or contradict) those answers; and requests for admission that lock in facts the entity cannot honestly deny. Because these responses are given under oath, they become powerful evidence — and when an agency’s sworn answers conflict with its own records, that contradiction is often the turning point of the case.
I also read what a public entity produces as carefully as what it withholds. Agency records like daily reports are typically numbered in sequence, and a gap in the numbers can reveal documents that were quietly left out of the production. Catching those gaps, and pressing for the missing records, is the kind of detailed work that separates a case built to settle cheaply from one built to win.
Two Ways to Prove a City Is Liable for a Dangerous Condition
Under Government Code section 835 there are two paths to holding a public entity responsible for a hazard on its property, and I develop both. The first is creation — proving a public employee made the dangerous condition in the first place, such as a crew that removed a tree and left a jagged stump, or that dug a trench and left it unguarded. The second is notice — proving the entity knew, or should have known, about a hazard it did not create. Creation, when the records support it, is often the cleaner path, because it does not require proving the city was ever warned. That is why one of my first records requests targets the permits, work orders, and maintenance history for the exact location: those documents frequently show the city’s own crews created the condition.
How I Prove a City “Should Have Known”: Duration, Presence, and a Failed Inspection System
Most dangerous-condition cases turn on constructive notice — whether the hazard existed long enough, and was obvious enough, that the city should have discovered and fixed it under Government Code section 835.2. I prove that with three kinds of evidence, nearly all of it drawn from public records and the city’s own files:
- Duration. A fixed, obvious hazard that sat for months or years is the heart of constructive notice. Historical Google Street View captures, dated photographs, and the city’s own maintenance timeline can establish exactly how long the condition was there.
- Presence. A city’s service-order and 311 systems log every time a crew is dispatched to a block — for street cleaning, inspections, or unrelated complaints. When those records show city employees working feet from an obvious hazard, over and over, the city cannot credibly claim it never had the opportunity to see it.
- A system operated without due care. When the city ran an inspection program for exactly that kind of hazard on exactly that block — yet the records show inspections cancelled without action, or closed as “nothing found” while an obvious defect stood in plain view — that is direct evidence the city failed to operate a reasonable inspection system, which the statute makes admissible on its own.
Those same records name the individual inspectors and crew members who were at the scene. In discovery, deposing those employees about what they actually saw can turn “should have known” into “did know” — the strongest form of notice there is.
What a Proper Claim Must Contain
A government claim is not just a phone call or an accident report. Government Code section 910 requires the written claim to include specific information: your name and address, the date, place, and circumstances of the injury, a description of the harm, the names of the public employees involved (if known), and the amount claimed. A claim that is missing required information, or that is sent to the wrong entity, can be treated as defective — which is one more reason these claims should not be attempted casually.
What Happens After You File the Claim
- The entity has 45 days to respond. Under Government Code section 912.4, the public entity has 45 days to act on your claim. If it does nothing, the claim is deemed rejected by operation of law.
- If the claim is rejected, a second short clock starts. Under Government Code section 945.6, if the entity mails you a proper written rejection, you generally have only six months from the date of that notice to file your lawsuit. If the entity never sends a proper rejection notice, you generally have two years from the injury to sue.
Attorneys sometimes call this “the rule of six”: six months to present the claim, then six months to sue after a rejection. Each deadline is strict, and each one can end a case if it is missed.
What If the Six Months Already Passed?
If the six-month deadline has already run, the case is not always over. Government Code section 911.4 allows you to file an application to present a late claim, generally within one year of the injury, in limited circumstances — such as mistake, excusable neglect, or where the injured person was a minor or incapacitated. These applications are technical and are frequently denied, so they are not a substitute for filing on time. But if you believe your deadline has passed, you should still talk to an attorney immediately rather than assume nothing can be done.
Why These Cases Require an Experienced Attorney — Fast
Public entities are represented by government attorneys and risk managers whose job is to enforce every one of these deadlines and requirements to the letter. A claim filed a week late, sent to the wrong agency, or missing required information can be rejected on a technicality before anyone ever looks at how badly you were hurt — and the records that prove notice can be overwritten or lost while you wait. The single most valuable thing you can do is get an attorney involved quickly, so the correct claim is presented to the correct entity, on time, and the public records are secured before they disappear.
As a trial-tested attorney practicing since 2009, I identify every potentially responsible entity, secure the public records that prove notice, present the claim correctly and on time, and then prepare the case as if it will go before a jury. I have recovered more than $25 million for injured clients across the Bay Area; you can review some of those case results. And when a public entity’s negligence takes a life, I help families pursue a wrongful death claim within these same deadlines.
Talk to a San Francisco Government Claims Lawyer for Free
If a government agency, public vehicle, or dangerous public condition may have caused your injury, do not wait — the six-month clock may already be running. Call (415) 851-4557 or request a free case review today. You pay no attorney fees unless I recover for you. Se habla español.
Generally six months from the date of the injury, under Government Code section 911.2 — far shorter than the two-year deadline for claims against private parties. You must present a written claim to the public entity before you can file a lawsuit.
San Francisco claims are filed on the City’s official claim form with the Controller’s Office Claims Division, under Government Code sections 905 and 915. The form and instructions are available through the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, and the six-month deadline applies. Other cities, counties, and agencies each have their own form and filing address.
Cities and counties (including San Francisco), transit agencies like Muni and BART, the State of California and agencies like Caltrans, public school districts and universities, public utilities, public hospitals, and special districts. If any of these — or an employee, vehicle, or project connected to them — caused your injury, the Government Claims Act likely applies.
Possibly. Under Government Code section 835, a public entity can be liable for a dangerous condition of its property if it created the condition or knew about it and failed to fix it. Proving what the entity knew — through public records and targeted discovery — is central to these cases, and they still require presenting a claim within the six-month deadline.
Through public records and discovery. Using the California Public Records Act and San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance, we obtain permits, inspection logs, work orders, prior complaints, and 311 reports that show what the agency knew and when. After suit is filed, targeted interrogatories and requests for production lock the entity into sworn answers and surface the internal records behind them.
The entity has 45 days to act (Government Code section 912.4). If it rejects the claim in writing, you generally have six months from that notice to file a lawsuit (section 945.6). If it never sends a proper rejection, you generally have two years from the injury to sue.
You may be able to file an application to present a late claim, generally within one year of the injury, in limited situations such as excusable neglect or where the injured person was a minor or incapacitated (Government Code section 911.4). These are frequently denied, so contact an attorney immediately rather than assume your case is over.
No. California civil courts decide these cases on the facts, not on immigration status, and what you tell your attorney is confidential. Your right to recover does not depend on a document.
This firm works on a contingency fee: you pay nothing up front and owe no attorney fees unless we recover for you. The consultation is free.