Sacramento Car Accident Attorney

Michael Rehm - (916) 233-7346

Sacramento ranks first in California for speed-related car accident victims. According to the California Office of Traffic Safety 2023 crash rankings, Sacramento led all fifteen of the state's largest cities in both speed-related injury deaths and serious injuries — 745 people — and ranked first for alcohol-involved crash victims at 454. Total killed and injured in Sacramento in 2023: 4,214, second highest in the state.

Attorney Michael Rehm handles car accident cases throughout Sacramento County. If another driver's negligence caused your injuries, I can evaluate your claim, identify every available source of liability and insurance coverage, and take the case through litigation if that is what it takes to recover what you are owed. There is no fee unless you recover.

Call (916) 233-7346 for a free consultation.

What You Can Recover

California law divides damages in a car accident case into two categories: economic and noneconomic. Understanding both — and how they interact when multiple parties share fault — matters for evaluating what a case is actually worth.

Economic damages are the objectively verifiable losses: past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, impaired earning capacity, and property damage. Under Civil Code section 1431.2 (Proposition 51), economic damages are joint and several — if multiple defendants share responsibility for your injuries, each is liable for the full amount of your economic losses. The plaintiff does not bear the risk of an insolvent defendant for economic damages.

Noneconomic damages — pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium — are several only under Proposition 51. Each defendant pays only their proportionate share. If a defendant cannot pay, the plaintiff absorbs that gap. This distinction shapes litigation strategy in multi-defendant cases.

Future damages — future medical care, future lost earnings, and future pain and suffering — require evidence establishing the losses with reasonable certainty. Expert testimony, life care plans, and vocational rehabilitation assessments are typically required in serious injury cases. Under Civil Code section 3283, damages for future harm are available where the evidence supports them.

Punitive damages are available in cases involving drunk driving or other conduct that meets the standard in Civil Code section 3294: clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. In the car accident context, this most commonly applies to DUI drivers — but requires more than proving the driver was intoxicated. The standard is despicable conduct with willful and knowing disregard for the rights or safety of others. Not every DUI crash meets that threshold; some do clearly. Punitive damages are not available against government entities under Government Code section 818.

Wrongful death cases follow a separate statutory framework. Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 defines who may bring a wrongful death claim — surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, or others entitled to inherit from the decedent. A survival action under CCP section 377.30 allows the estate to recover damages the decedent could have recovered. There is a time-limited provision worth flagging: CCP section 377.34, as amended by SB 447, permits survival actions to include pre-death pain, suffering, and disfigurement for deaths occurring between January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2026. Outside that window, pre-death pain and suffering is not recoverable in a survival action. If the decedent's death falls within the window, that provision is significant to the case value.

How Car Accident Claims Work in California

Every car accident case rests on the same legal foundation. Civil Code section 1714(a) establishes that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their failure to exercise ordinary care. To prevail at trial, a plaintiff must prove three elements under CACI 400: that the defendant was negligent; that the plaintiff was harmed; and that the defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

For car accidents specifically, CACI 700 states the standard of care directly: "A person must use reasonable care in driving a vehicle. Drivers must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must also control the speed and movement of their vehicles." That standard applies regardless of whether any specific traffic statute was violated.

Speed: Two Different Legal Standards

Speed is the most common issue in Sacramento auto accident cases, and California law draws a distinction between its two speed statutes that defense attorneys regularly exploit.

Vehicle Code section 22350 is the basic speed law. It requires every driver to travel at a speed that is reasonable given the actual conditions: traffic, weather, visibility, and road surface. A violation of section 22350 is negligence per se under CACI 706. If the jury finds the defendant was driving at an unreasonable speed for the conditions, negligence is established without requiring further proof on that element. The plaintiff still proves harm and causation separately.

Vehicle Code section 40831 addresses posted speed limits differently. CACI 707 instructs the jury that the posted speed limit "is a factor to consider" — not a per se standard. Driving above the posted limit does not establish negligence as a matter of law. Driving at or below the posted limit does not establish that the driver was exercising reasonable care. A driver traveling 40 mph on Florin Road during a dense fog advisory may be within the limit and still driving negligently under the basic speed law.

In Sacramento crash cases, the distinction matters: the defense will argue the driver was under the posted limit. The obvious counter is that the posted limit is irrelevant to whether the driver was driving at a reasonable speed for actual conditions under section 22350.

Left-Turn Crashes

Left turns are consistently among the most common scenarios in Sacramento intersection crashes. Vehicle Code section 21801(a) requires a turning driver to yield to oncoming vehicles and pedestrians until the turn can be made with reasonable safety. CACI 704 extends this duty across every lane: even if a driver in one lane waves you through, the turning driver must independently confirm that all other lanes are clear before completing the turn. Gilmer v. Ellington (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 190 affirmed that a waiver of right of way by one driver does not relieve the turning driver of this obligation as to other lanes.

Comparative Fault

California follows a pure comparative fault system, established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Under CACI 405, a plaintiff's own negligence reduces but does not bar recovery. If a jury finds the plaintiff was 30% at fault, the plaintiff recovers 70% of total damages. Insurance defense attorneys use comparative fault arguments to reduce their exposure — they will argue that you were speeding, that you failed to see the other vehicle, or that you could have avoided the collision. I evaluate those arguments against the actual evidence.

The Seatbelt Defense

If you were not wearing a seatbelt, expect the defense to raise it. Under Vehicle Code section 27315, failure to wear a seatbelt does not establish negligence as a matter of law — the statute expressly states it cannot be used to show negligence per se or to establish comparative fault automatically. But under CACI 712, a defendant may still argue the defense if they prove: (1) a working seatbelt was available; (2) a reasonably careful person would have used it; (3) the plaintiff failed to use it; and (4) the injuries would have been avoided or less severe if the seatbelt had been used. Element four typically requires expert testimony. The defense reduces damages — it does not bar the claim.

Employer and Owner Liability

If the at-fault driver was on the job at the time of the crash, the employer may be liable under respondeat superior. This is significant: employees are usually individuals with minimum-limits policies, while employers carry commercial auto and general liability coverage with substantially higher limits. Vehicle Code section 14606 makes it unlawful for an employer to permit an unlicensed driver to operate a vehicle — a violation that creates a negligent entrustment claim.

If the at-fault driver was operating someone else's vehicle, Vehicle Code section 17150 makes the vehicle owner vicariously liable for the driver's negligence if the driver had the owner's permission, express or implied. Under Insurance Code section 11580.1(b)(4), a permissive-use driver is always an additional insured under the vehicle owner's liability policy.

Rideshare cases require a tiered analysis. Whether Uber or Lyft's corporate insurance applies depends on which phase the driver was in at the time of the crash: app off, app on without an assigned ride, or actively transporting a passenger. Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 252 and Marez v. Lyft, Inc. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 569 addressed course-and-scope and coverage questions in the rideshare context. The applicable tier determines which insurer is primary and what policy limits apply.

Sacramento Car Accident Data

Sacramento's crash record is documented by the California Office of Traffic Safety, the city's Vision Zero program, and the Sacramento County Superior Court. The numbers reflect conditions on specific roads where people actually drive.

Sacramento ranked first among California's fifteen largest cities for speed-related car accident victims in 2023 — 745 people killed or seriously injured in speed-related crashes. (California OTS 2023)
Sacramento ranked first for alcohol-involved crash victims in 2023 — 454 people. (California OTS 2023)
Sacramento ranked second overall for total fatal and injury crash victims in 2023 among California's fifteen largest cities — 4,214 people. (California OTS 2023)
Sacramento County Superior Court handled 2,232 motor vehicle personal injury case filings in fiscal year 2023–24.
Highway 99 south of Sacramento records more fog-related traffic fatalities than any other roadway in the United States. Dense fog advisories in the Sacramento Valley run from November through March.
Sacramento's Vision Zero High Injury Network identifies four corridors as responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crashes: Florin Road, Stockton Boulevard, El Camino Avenue, and Marysville Boulevard.
The city's three highest-concentration KSI (killed or seriously injured) intersections are all on Stockton Boulevard: Stockton/Broadway, Stockton/Lemon Hill Avenue, and Stockton/47th Avenue.
The high-speed corridors — I-5, Business 80, Highway 50, and Highway 99 — generate the region's most severe-impact crashes. Freeway speed combined with Sacramento's uninsured driver rate creates recurring coverage gaps in serious injury cases.

Insurance Coverage in Sacramento Car Accident Cases

Identifying all available insurance coverage is the first step in evaluating any Sacramento car accident claim. What a case is worth on paper matters less than what is collectible — and in Sacramento, the gap between the two is real.

Minimum liability coverage in California increased under AB 1107. For policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2025, the minimum limits are $30,000 per person / $60,000 per accident / $15,000 for property damage, under Vehicle Code section 16056. Policies that predate January 1, 2025 carry the prior minimums of $15,000/$30,000/$5,000. Another step-up takes effect January 1, 2035. Minimum-limits policies are inadequate in most serious injury cases. The coverage analysis extends beyond the at-fault driver's policy to umbrella policies, employer policies, and the victim's own UM/UIM coverage.

Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is mandatory in California under Insurance Code section 11580.2 unless the insured waives it in writing. Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage fills the gap when the at-fault driver's limits are inadequate to cover the full extent of damages. Claims against your own insurer under UM/UIM have their own procedural requirements, including Sacramento County Superior Court Local Rule 2.49, which governs UM arbitration procedures locally.

Commercial vehicle and employer coverage applies when the at-fault driver was operating within the scope of their employment. Commercial auto policies carry substantially higher limits than personal auto policies. If the employer negligently entrusted a vehicle to an unlicensed or incompetent driver, there is an independent negligent entrustment claim under Vehicle Code section 14606. In cases involving commercial DUI drivers, Civil Code section 3333.7 permits treble damages against an employer who willfully failed to comply with federal DOT drug and alcohol testing requirements.

Rideshare coverage tiers under Public Utilities Code section 5431 et seq.:

App off: Driver's personal auto policy applies. Uber and Lyft's corporate coverage does not apply.
App on, no passenger assigned: Contingent liability coverage through Uber/Lyft at reduced limits ($50,000/$100,000/$25,000); driver's personal policy may be primary.
Passenger assigned or in vehicle: Full $1,000,000 corporate liability coverage applies. This is the phase where the claims handling is most straightforward and the exposure is clearest.

Which tier applies at the moment of the crash determines whether you are dealing with a minimum-limits personal auto insurer or a $1 million corporate policy. The investigation starts with the driver's app status at the time of the collision.

Filing a Car Accident Case in Sacramento County

Car accident cases in Sacramento County are filed at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse, 720 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. The Sacramento County Superior Court handled 2,232 motor vehicle personal injury filings in fiscal year 2023–24, the most recent statistics available.

The standard statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death claims is two years from the date of accrual under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. In most car accident cases, the clock starts running on the date of the crash.

Attorney Michael Rehm handles car accident cases throughout Sacramento County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (916) 233-7346 for a free consultation — home visits, and hospital visits available.