Published on: March 21, 2026

Statute Of Limitations For Wrongful Death In California

Article Summary

In California, the statute of limitations for wrongful death claims generally grants surviving family members two years from the date of death to file a lawsuit. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1, this deadline is a strict legal barrier; missing it typically results in the permanent dismissal of the case regardless of its merits. Eligible plaintiffs include spouses, children, and certain financially dependent relatives. While the two-year rule is standard, specific circumstances can significantly alter this timeline. For instance, claims against government entities require an administrative filing within just six months. Medical malpractice cases follow a different structure, often requiring action within one year of discovering the negligence. Furthermore, the statute is tolled for minor children until they reach adulthood. The discovery rule may also delay the start of the clock if the cause of death was not immediately apparent. Because investigating these complex claims and gathering evidence takes considerable time, families must act quickly to preserve their rights and maintain leverage in settlement negotiations. Seeking experienced legal counsel early ensures that all procedural requirements are met before the window for seeking justice and financial compensation closes forever.

Making a Claim for Wrongful Death in California

Published on: December 9, 2025

Wrongful Death Claims in California — Complete Guide for Families

by Steven M. Sweat

Losing a loved one is devastating. When that loss is caused by someone else’s negligence or wrongful act, the emotional shock is often compounded by practical and legal questions: Who can sue? What can families recover? How long do you have to act? This guide explains how wrongful death and related survival claims work in California, what damages are available, common hurdles, and practical steps families should take. Citations to the controlling California statutes and to resources on victimslawyer.com are included throughout so you — and any lawyer you hire — can follow the law and next steps precisely.

1) Two different claims after a death: wrongful death vs. survival action

When someone dies because of another’s misconduct or negligence, California law recognizes two distinct causes of action that often arise from the same set of facts:

Published on: September 2, 2022

California Court Rules on Scope of Employment Wrongful Death

by Steven M. Sweat

Employers are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of their employees when the employees injure others while acting within the scope and course of their employment. In Musgrove v. Silver, Cal. Ct. App. Case No. B311504, the Court of Appeal considered whether Hollywood producer Joel Silver was directly or vicariously liable for the death of his assistant while they were in Bora Bora for Jennifer Anniston’s wedding.

Factual and Procedural Background

Carmel Musgrove was a 28-year-old executive assistant to Hollywood Producer Joel Silver. In August 2015, Silver invited Musgrove and Silver’s personal chef, Martin Herold to travel to Bora Bora with him, his family members, and friends to Bora Bora to celebrate actress Jennifer Aniston’s wedding. Silver gave Musgrove the option of attending but did not mandate her presence. He told her if she went, she would only have minimal duties of coordinating the schedules of Silver and his family but would otherwise be free to do what she wished. He also paid all of her expenses for travel, food, and alcohol during her stay. Herold traveled to make the family’s meals but also was otherwise free to do what wished and was paid for preparing meals. His expenses were also covered, including alcohol.

Published on: December 13, 2021

New California Law Allows Pain and Suffering Damages in Wrongful Death Claims

by Steven M. Sweat

A law that was recently signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom will make significant changes to survival actions and wrongful death claims and the types of damages that can be recovered in them. The changes to the law might substantially increase the damages that might be recoverable when people are killed as a result of the negligent or wrongful actions of others.

Survival actions are brought by the personal representative or successor in interest of the deceased person’s estate and seek the types of damages the deceased victim could have pursued in a personal injury claim if he or she had survived. By contrast, wrongful death claims are brought by the surviving family members of deceased victims to recover compensation for the harms they have suffered because of their loved ones’ deaths. The changes to the law affect the types of damages that are recoverable in survival actions brought by the estate for the benefit of the heirs.

Background of the law

Published on: October 10, 2018

CA Appeals Court Rules No Duty to Provide Defibrillator to Sports Participant

by Steven M. Sweat

In California, certain types of facilities such as health centers and schools are required to have automated external defibrillators available to use in case members and users of the facilities have heart attacks. However, there are limits to this requirement as demonstrated by Jabo v. YMCA of San Diego Co., Cal. Ct. App., Case No. D072613.[1] In that case, the court found that health facilities may not be required to supply AEDs to private leagues that rent fields to use for their games.

Factual and procedural background of the case

Adeal Jabo was a 43-year-old man who was a member of the over-40 Chaldean Soccer League in San Diego, California. The league had contracted with the YMCA of San Diego County to rent the use of a soccer field on the YMCA’s premises for its season on a private basis at a cost of $2,550. Per the agreement, the YMCA agreed to provide soccer balls and an electronic scoreboard to the league to use during its games. It also assigned a YMCA employee to serve as the scorekeeper but did not agree to do anything more.

Published on: September 26, 2016

Jim Carrey Sued for Wrongful Death in California

by Steven M. Sweat

Jim Carrey, Lawsuit, Death, Girlfriend On September 19, news broke that Jim Carrey is being sued in California for wrongful death by his girlfriend’s estranged husband. Carrey’s girlfriend, Cathriona White, committed suicide in September 2015 by overdosing on several different types of prescription medications. She had married Mark Burton in Las Vegas in 2013 but had dated Carrey for a couple of years afterward without divorcing Burton. Burton is thus her next-of-kin and has made multiple salacious allegations against Carrey in his lawsuit. While a media storm may have ignited, there are multiple reasons why Burton’s case will be very difficult to prove.

Legal standard for bringing a wrongful death claim in California

A wrongful death claim may be made when a person’s death directly resulted from the wrongful actions or negligence of another person. The wrongful death claim may be an intentional tort, which could be filed in the case of murder, or a negligence tort, which could follow a fatal collision.

Published on: July 7, 2016

$23.7 Million Jury Verdict in Los Angeles Dangerous Intersection Case

by Steven M. Sweat

Dangerous Intersection, Los Angeles, Death, Lawsuit
A recent case in Los Angeles, California (Lani Guillmete, et.al. vs. City of Los Angeles, et. al. – L.A. Superior Court Case Number BC523080) illustrates the responsibility cities hold to take action once they learn that intersections or roadways are in dangerous conditions. If a city does nothing to correct the problem and someone is seriously injured or killed because of it, the city may be held liable to pay damages for the losses caused by the accident.

Background of the case

On Feb. 27, 2013, Thomas Guilmette, a 59-year-old rocket scientist, was riding his motorcycle on Summerland in San Pedro, California. Another man was driving his vehicle on Cabrillo when he tried to turn left onto Summerland, striking the rocket scientist and killing him. The defendant motorist had an obstructed view to his left and was unable to see the scientist because of a row of parked cars. The city did not have any no-parking signs in the area and allowed vehicles to park near the intersection despite the obstruction in vision. The decedent’s wife and son sued the city in a wrongful death civil lawsuit. The motorist was found to not be liable for the accident.

Published on: September 12, 2013

Michael Jackson Wrongful Death Case Will Go To The Jury For A Decision

by Steven M. Sweat

CNN reported today that the Michael Jackson wrongful death case will go to a jury for a decision. The attorneys for the defendant, AEG Entertainment Group (AEG), filed a motion to have the case dismissed but, this was overruled. (See full CNN report here: Michael Jackson trial). The jury trial has been going on since late April of this year and countless witnesses have presented testimony for the plaintiffs (the Jackson family) and the defense, AEG. There is some indication that Michael Jackson’s mother may be recalled as a witness and then both sides will present closing arguments and the jury will render a verdict. In order for the Jackson family to prevail, the jury will need to decide that AEG was negligent in hiring, supervising or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray, who has been criminally convicted of providing a lethal overdose of narcotics to Michael, thereby causing his death. I wanted to explore what California law requires for proving such a case in this post.

What Elements Will the Michael Jackson Jury Need to Decide Were Proven By the Evidence to Hold AEG Liable for Negligence?

As with any trial by jury in the State of California, the jury will be instructed on the law by the judge through pre-approved jury instructions. The principal jury instruction in play for purposes of holding AEG liable for Jackson’s death will be California Civil Jury Instruction 426, which requires the following:

Published on: July 15, 2013

Why did the Trayvon Martin wrongful death suit settle for over $1 Million, if George Zimmerman was found not guilty?

by Steven M. Sweat

Americans seem very divided, to say the least, about the recent not guilty jury verdict for George Zimmerman related to the death of Trayvon Martin. Indeed, this has been one of the most emotionally charged cases in recent years. One thought I had as an attorney that has handled both civil and criminal cases is that some people may be thinking about the differences between the civil, wrongful death claims brought by Martin’s family and the criminal prosecution of Mr. Zimmerman. In Early April of this year, it was reported by the local newspapers in Florida that the parents of Trayvon Martin reached a settlement in their civil lawsuit against the homeowner’s association where Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain for approximately $1,000,000.00 (although the exact amount was confidential). (See Footnote 1). Then, as we all now, Zimmerman was found not guilty of the criminal charges (including second degree murder) just this past weekend. So, this leads one to think about these contrasting results.

What is a “burden of proof” and how does this differ between civil and criminal cases? The “burden of proof” is the standard by which a matter must be proven by the evidence at trial. In the case of a criminal prosecution, it is the state bringing the charges who has this burden. In the case of a civil action, it is the “plaintiff” (party seeking money or other damages) that bears this responsibility. Based upon a long series of cases and judicial history, the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. “Reasonable doubt” has been further defined as “doubt that would give rise to grave uncertainty”. (See Footnote 2).

By contrast, the “burden of proof” in a civil claim for money or other damages is lower. It is defined differently in different states and jurisdictions, however, most jurisdiction, including California define the civil lawsuit proof standard as “by a preponderance of the evidence” for most types of claims and, the slightly higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for claims for punitive damages (damages meant to punish the defendant rather than just compensate the victim). The “preponderance” standard is further defined as simply having to show, by the evidence, that facts are “more likely true than not true.” (See Footnote 3).