The “Discovery Rule” in California – How It Works

Graphic of a megaphone shouting 'start the countdown'

California’s discovery rule says that the statute of limitations for bringing a claim does not start until you discover (or should have discovered) the injury or loss. Without the rule, the statute of limitations for bringing a suit begins to run when the wrongful act giving rise to the suit took place.

The statute of limitations period for a personal injury claim in California is generally two years from the date of injury. You must file a lawsuit within this two-year period of time. If you fail to do so, then you generally cannot bring a claim.

Note that the applicable statute of limitations will differ depending on the nature of the claim. For example, while the statute of limitations for personal injury cases is two years, it is one year in cases of medical malpractice and legal malpractice.

Discovery Rule flowchart

Sometimes the statute of limitations is suspended or does not begin running for a certain period of time. This is known as “tolling.”

A limitations time period may toll, for example, when the defendant is:

The discovery rule represents a type of equitable tolling.

What is a statute of limitations?

A California statute of limitations is a deadline or period of time by which you must file a lawsuit or civil cause of action. State law says that, as a general rule, once the limitations period has run, or expired, you can no longer file a claim or sue for compensatory damages. 1

The general statute of limitations in a California personal injury case is generally two years from the date of the injury. 2

This two-year period applies to such injury or tort cases that involve:

Note that the limitations period is different for different types of claims. For example, the time limit for actions involving a written contract varies from one to four years. 3 Wrongful birth cases have a six-year statute of limitations.

If you are contemplating filing a lawsuit, it is a good idea to speak with an attorney/law office for legal advice on the accrual of a cause of action and the running of the statute of limitations.

What is the discovery rule?

The delayed discovery rule is a type of equitable tolling. Under California law, the rule tolls, or postpones, the start of the statute of limitations until you could reasonably have discovered your injuries.

The rule applies when either:

  1. you did not know of facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that they had suffered harm that was caused by someone’s wrongful conduct, or
  2. the exercise of reasonable diligence and a good-faith investigation would not have disclosed that a harmful product or situation contributed to your harm. 4

Consider, for example, the scenario where Joe has an operation on his abdominal area on January 1, 2018. The surgeon leaves a sponge inside him during the procedure. Joe begins experiencing abdominal pain during 2020. He has an x-ray of his stomach on April 1, 2020 that reveals the sponge.

Joe could file suit against the surgeon for medical malpractice. Per California law, the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is one year, and accrual of the cause of action normally starts on the date that the doctor committed negligence.

This would mean Joe would usually have to file his lawsuit by January 1, 2019, or one year after the surgeon’s malpractice. However, there is no way Joe would have discovered the sponge prior to his x-ray on April 1, 2020. As such, the discovery rule applies, and Joe now has one year from the date of discovery to file his claim. The specific deadline is April 1, 2021.

What is the “tolling” of the statute of limitations?

Sometimes the statute of limitations is suspended or does not begin running for a certain period of time. This is known as “tolling.”

Under California law, the statute of limitations may toll when the defendant is:

Once the condition leading to tolling has ended, the time limit begins to run or resumes.

Cases involving tolling can be quite complex. Therefore, we highly recommend you consult with an experienced California injury lawyer to determine whether you can still sue.

Why is there a statute of limitations?

Statutes of limitations exist out of a sense of fundamental fairness, judicial efficiency, and public policy.

Memories fade, documents may get inadvertently destroyed, and sometimes witnesses move away. These situations make evidence less reliable, and it is normally perceived as unjust to allow you to file a claim on such weak grounds.

A limitations period also encourages you to pursue your claims diligently, protects people from having to defend against “stale” claims, and provides everyone a sense of finality. 6

What if it is too late to file my claim?

It might not be. I have handled many lawsuits where an injury victim presumed the statute of limitations of passed, but after I investigated their case, I found that the statute of limitations had tolled. Then we were able to file a claim and negotiate a favorable settlement.

My most important advice to you is that if you start to feel (“discover”) symptoms that could be from an accident injury, do not wait to seek medical and legal help. Now that you have discovered your injuries, the statute of imitations may be running.

Additional reading

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

Legal References:

  1. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 CCP.
  2. See same.
  3. See, for example, California Code of Civ. Procedure 337 CCP.
  4. California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 455. Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 23 Cal.4th 383. See also: NBCUniversal Media, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1222; Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797; Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1018; Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103; Carillo v. County of Santa Clara (2023) 89 Cal. App. 5th 227 ; Kernan v. Regents of University of California (2022) 83 Cal. App. 5th 675 .
  5. See, for example, In Weinstock v. Eissler (California Court of Appeals, First District, Division 1, 1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 212.
  6. See, for example, Jolly v. Eli Lilly, supra.