Distracted Driving Accidents in California: Who Can Be Held at Fault?
Distracted driving is one of the most common—and most disputed—causes of car crashes in California. People often agree that “someone wasn’t paying attention,” but liability still comes down to proof: what the driver was doing, when they did it, and how that distraction caused the collision.
This guide breaks down who may be responsible in a distracted driving accident, what evidence matters most, how insurance companies typically challenge these claims, and how California’s comparative fault rules can change the outcome.
Liability snapshot: what usually decides fault in a distracted driving case
- The distraction type: Visual (eyes off road), manual (hands off wheel), cognitive (mind off driving), or all three (texting).
- Timing and causation: Whether the distraction occurred at the moment the hazard should have been seen and reacted to.
- Right of way and traffic laws: Signals, speed, safe following distance, lane changes, and intersection rules.
- Objective proof: Phone records, dashcam video, intersection cameras, surveillance footage, and event data recorders (EDR/“black box”).
- Police report details: Statements, diagram, any citation for handheld device use, and noted admissions.
- Witness credibility: Independent witnesses (not passengers) can be especially persuasive.
- Crash dynamics: Skid marks, point of impact, vehicle damage patterns, and time-distance analysis.
- Your own conduct: Seatbelt use, speed, and whether you contributed to the collision (comparative negligence).
What “distracted driving” means (and why it matters for fault)
Distracted driving generally refers to any activity that takes attention away from operating a vehicle safely. In a personal injury claim, the focus isn’t just whether a driver was “distracted,” but whether that distraction was negligent and caused the crash.
Common categories of distraction
- Visual distraction: Looking at a phone, GPS screen, infotainment display, billboard, or something inside the car.
- Manual distraction: Texting, dialing, eating, reaching into the back seat, adjusting controls, holding a phone.
- Cognitive distraction: Intense conversation, daydreaming, “hands-free” calls where the driver is mentally elsewhere.
- Mixed distraction: Texting or scrolling—often combines visual, manual, and cognitive distraction.
California context: phone use and “negligence”
California’s vehicle safety rules on handheld phone use and texting can matter because a violation may help show a driver failed to use reasonable care. Even if no citation was issued, a distracted driving theory can still be proven through evidence and crash reconstruction.
Who may be responsible in a distracted driving crash?
In many cases, the distracted driver is the primary at-fault party. But distracted driving collisions can involve more than one legally responsible party, especially when the driver was working, driving a company vehicle, using a rideshare app, or operating a commercial truck.
| Potentially responsible party | When they may share fault | Evidence that can help prove it |
|---|---|---|
| The distracted driver | They were texting, scrolling, holding a phone, using a GPS, eating, or otherwise not watching the road and caused a crash. | Phone records, dashcam video, witness statements, social media timestamps, police report notes, EDR data, intersection camera footage. |
| Employer/company | The driver was “on the clock” (making deliveries, traveling between job sites) and caused the crash; employer may be responsible under respondeat superior. | Work schedules, dispatch logs, delivery apps, GPS/telematics, timecards, uniforms/vehicle branding, employment policies. |
| Rideshare driver (and sometimes insurance layers) | A driver for a rideshare was distracted (app navigation, accepting rides) and caused injury; coverage may depend on app status phase. | Trip/ride status records, app logs, passenger screenshots, rideshare incident reports, vehicle telematics, dashcam footage. |
| Commercial trucking company | Truck driver distraction (phone, dispatch device) plus possible company pressure, inadequate training, or unsafe policies. | Driver logs, electronic logging device (ELD) data, Qualcomm/dispatch messages, maintenance records, training files, onboard camera video. |
| Another driver | More than one driver was negligent (e.g., one distracted, the other speeding or making an unsafe lane change). | Vehicle positions, skid marks, witness statements, traffic camera footage, accident reconstruction analysis. |
| Government entity (road design/maintenance) | A dangerous condition (obscured signage, malfunctioning signals, poor sight lines) contributed—often with strict claim deadlines. | Photos/video of roadway, prior complaints, maintenance logs, signal timing records, collision history, expert roadway analysis. |
How fault is actually proven: what evidence carries the most weight
Because distraction happens inside a vehicle, insurers often argue there’s “no proof” the driver was on a phone or otherwise inattentive. Strong cases typically combine multiple sources of evidence that fit together logically.
1) Phone records and device activity
Call logs, data sessions, and text metadata can help show whether a phone was in use near the time of impact. In some situations, deeper device data may be relevant, but access can require formal legal steps. The key issue is timing—not whether the person “sometimes texts,” but whether it happened when the crash occurred.
2) Video: dashcams, security systems, and traffic cameras
Video can show lane drift, delayed braking, failure to yield, or a driver looking down. If you suspect footage exists (nearby businesses, parking structures, homes, buses), acting quickly matters because many systems overwrite recordings.
3) Scene evidence and crash dynamics
- Skid marks (or lack of them): No braking before impact can support an inference of inattention.
- Point of impact: Helps determine who moved into whose lane or who failed to stop.
- Vehicle crush patterns: Can indicate speed, angle, and whether a driver attempted evasive action.
4) Event Data Recorder (EDR) / vehicle “black box” data
Many vehicles store pre-crash data such as speed, braking, throttle position, and seatbelt status. This can be useful when a driver claims they braked or were traveling slowly.
5) Witness statements (especially independent witnesses)
Witnesses may have seen phone use, erratic driving, lane weaving, or a driver looking down. Passengers can be helpful too, but insurers may treat them as “interested” witnesses.
6) The police report—useful, but not the last word
A traffic collision report can be important, especially if it documents an admission (“I looked down at my phone”) or a citation. But liability is not decided solely by a report—insurance companies still evaluate all evidence, and reports can contain errors.
What insurers commonly argue in distracted-driving claims (and how people respond)
Insurance adjusters often try to reframe distracted driving as something else—an “unavoidable” event or shared blame—because distraction can strongly imply negligence.
Common pushbacks
- “No one can prove they were on the phone.” Response often focuses on phone records, timestamps, video, and crash dynamics.
- “They were using hands-free, so it’s fine.” Hands-free does not automatically eliminate distraction; the question is still reasonable care under the circumstances.
- “You stopped suddenly.” In rear-end collisions, the following driver is often presumed to have lacked a safe following distance, but facts matter (traffic, hazards, brake lights, road conditions).
- “You were partly at fault too.” That leads to comparative negligence analysis, which can reduce damages rather than eliminate the claim.
- “Your injuries aren’t from this crash.” They may argue pre-existing conditions; medical documentation and consistent treatment are commonly important.
Comparative fault in California: distraction doesn’t always mean 100% responsibility
California uses pure comparative negligence. That means fault can be divided among multiple parties, and an injured person’s compensation may be reduced by their percentage of responsibility.
Examples of shared-fault arguments insurers might raise include:
- You were speeding when the distracted driver turned left in front of you
- You changed lanes at the same time a distracted driver drifted into your lane
- You weren’t wearing a seatbelt (which can affect injury damages)
- You were also distracted (phone use, adjusting infotainment, etc.)
Example scenario (hypothetical): intersection crash with competing stories
Hypothetical: Driver A is traveling straight through an intersection on a green light. Driver B makes a left turn and hits Driver A’s front-right side. Driver B claims Driver A “came out of nowhere” and must have been speeding. Driver A suspects Driver B was distracted because Driver B looked down immediately after the crash and said, “I didn’t see you.”
How fault might be analyzed
- Right of way: In many situations, a left-turning driver must yield to oncoming traffic. That points toward Driver B’s liability.
- Distraction proof: If phone records show activity near impact, and a witness saw Driver B looking down during the turn, that strengthens a distracted-driving theory.
- Speed dispute: If EDR data shows Driver A was within a reasonable speed range, the “you were speeding” defense weakens. If Driver A was speeding, fault may be shared.
- Outcome: Driver B could still be primarily at fault, with Driver A assigned a percentage if speed materially contributed.
What to do after a suspected distracted-driving accident (to protect a future claim)
After a crash, what you do in the first hours and days can affect what evidence exists later.
At the scene (when safe)
- Call 911 and request medical assistance if anyone is hurt.
- Photograph and video positions of vehicles (if safe), lane markings, signals, debris, and visible injuries.
- Get driver and witness information (names, phone numbers). Independent witnesses can be crucial.
- Note observations (e.g., the other driver holding a phone, admitting they “didn’t see you,” or asking someone to delete something). Don’t argue; just document.
- Avoid speculating about fault. Stick to facts when speaking with police.
In the days after
- Get medical evaluation and follow up as recommended. Delays can complicate injury claims.
- Preserve evidence: save photos, repair estimates, tow receipts, and any dashcam footage (yours or witnesses’ if shared).
- Write down a timeline while memory is fresh: direction of travel, traffic signals, weather, what you saw, and what was said.
- Be careful with social media: posts can be misinterpreted and used to challenge injury severity or credibility.
Injuries and losses that are commonly claimed in distracted-driving collisions
Distracted driving crashes range from low-speed rear-end impacts to high-energy T-bones and multi-vehicle pileups. Claims often involve:
- Medical expenses (ER care, imaging, surgery, physical therapy, medications)
- Future medical needs (ongoing rehab, specialist care)
- Lost income and reduced earning capacity
- Property damage (vehicle repair/total loss, rental car)
- Pain and suffering (a legal category that may include physical pain and lifestyle impact)
Special situations that can change a distracted driving fault analysis
Rear-end collisions
Rear-end crashes often raise suspicion of distraction because a reasonably attentive driver usually has time to brake. But there can be exceptions (sudden stops, mechanical issues, unexpected roadway hazards). Evidence like following distance, brake application data, and witness accounts can matter.
Multi-car chain reactions
In a chain-reaction crash, the “first hit” doesn’t always determine everyone’s fault. One distracted driver may start the sequence, but following drivers may also share fault for tailgating or inattention.
Rideshare and delivery drivers
Navigation prompts, incoming orders, and app interactions can increase distraction risk. Liability may involve personal auto insurance, commercial policies, and rideshare coverage depending on the driver’s status at the time.
Commercial trucks and fleet vehicles
Commercial cases can involve additional evidence sources (ELD/telematics, onboard cameras, dispatch messaging). They can also involve company-level responsibility for training, supervision, and safety policies.
When a distracted driving claim is difficult to prove
Some cases are challenging—especially when there’s no video, no independent witness, and both drivers insist they had the green light or stayed in their lane. In those situations, claims often turn on:
- The consistency of each driver’s story with physical evidence
- Vehicle damage angles and road markings
- EDR/telematics and braking data
- Credibility factors (prior inconsistent statements, admissions, timelines)
FAQ
Is texting while driving automatically the other driver’s fault in California?
Answer: Not automatically. Texting can strongly support negligence, but fault still depends on causation and other factors (right of way, speed, road conditions, and whether multiple parties contributed).
What if the distracted driver denies using their phone?
Answer: Denial doesn’t end the inquiry. Phone records, video footage, witness statements, and vehicle data can help establish what happened near the moment of impact.
Can hands-free phone use still be considered distracted driving?
Answer: Yes. Hands-free reduces manual and visual distraction, but cognitive distraction can still affect reaction time and decision-making, depending on the circumstances.
What if I was partially at fault too?
Answer: You may still have a claim. California’s comparative negligence rules generally allow recovery even if you share fault, though compensation can be reduced by your percentage of responsibility.
Should I give a recorded statement to the insurance company?
Answer: It depends on the situation. Recorded statements can be used to lock in details early; if you’re unsure, it’s common to get guidance before providing one.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit for a distracted driving injury in California?
Answer: Often, personal injury claims have a statute of limitations, but deadlines can be shorter for government entities and certain situations. Getting advice early can help avoid missed deadlines.
Talk to a California distracted driving accident lawyer
If you were injured and believe distraction played a role—texting, phone use, navigation screens, or in-car distractions—getting a clear liability analysis early can help preserve key evidence and evaluate next steps. Jacob Emrani and the team at CallJacob.com handle California personal injury matters and can discuss the situation, what evidence may be important, and what to expect in an insurance claim.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about distracted driving liability in California and is not legal advice. Every case is different, and reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship.