Who Can You Sue When Poor Road Conditions Cause a Crash in California?

When a crash is triggered by a dangerous roadway—like a deep pothole, missing warning signs, bad drainage, or broken guardrails—the big question becomes: who is legally responsible for the road and for keeping it reasonably safe? In California, liability often involves a government entity (city, county, Caltrans, or another agency), but that’s not the only possibility. Depending on the facts, responsibility can also extend to contractors, utilities, property owners, or even another driver.

This guide breaks down the most common defendants, what has to be proven, the evidence that matters, and the pitfalls that can derail a road-condition claim.

Liability snapshot: the most common defendants in road-condition accidents

• City or county (local streets, many intersections, some bridges)
• Caltrans / State of California (many freeways, state routes, on-ramps/off-ramps)
• Other public agencies (transportation authorities, special districts, public works departments)
• Private road maintenance contractors (paving, striping, landscaping, debris removal)
• Construction companies (temporary traffic control, lane closures, trenches, plates)
• Utility companies (street cuts, manholes, vaults, exposed equipment, poorly restored patches)
• Adjacent property owners (dangerous vegetation, drainage, encroaching hazards—limited circumstances)
• Another negligent driver (if their driving turns a road hazard into a collision)

Start here: identify who controls the roadway

Before deciding “who to sue,” you typically need to identify who owned or controlled the location where the hazardous condition existed. In many Southern California cases, the issue is whether the road is under city/county control or Caltrans. Control can switch at certain boundaries, ramps, bridges, frontage roads, and intersections.

Why it matters: claims involving government entities follow special procedures and strict deadlines. Also, more than one entity can share responsibility (for example, a city street that connects to a state on-ramp with overlapping signage or signal issues).

Who you may sue (and when): a defendant-by-defendant breakdown

1) A city or county (dangerous condition on a local road)

You may have a claim against a city or county if a dangerous condition of public property caused the crash. Examples of alleged dangerous conditions can include:

• Large potholes, broken pavement, uneven roadway surfaces
• Missing or obstructed stop signs or yield signs
• Faded or confusing lane striping
• Malfunctioning traffic signals
• Dangerous shoulder drop-offs
• Inadequate lighting in certain areas
• Debris that should have been cleared

In general terms, key issues are whether the condition created a substantial risk when used with due care, whether the agency had notice (actual or constructive), and whether they had time to take reasonable corrective action.

2) Caltrans / the State of California (freeways and state routes)

If the crash happens on a freeway, state route, or certain ramps, Caltrans may be responsible for maintenance, signage, and roadway design elements. Caltrans-related allegations often involve:

• Freeway potholes or failed repairs
• Missing or inadequate warning signs for known hazards
• Unsafe barriers, guardrails, or attenuators
• Drainage issues causing recurring pooling or hydroplaning risks
• Construction-zone traffic control problems (sometimes shared with contractors)

Caltrans cases can become technical quickly—maintenance logs, inspection schedules, prior complaints, and design standards may matter.

3) A public agency other than a city/county/state

Some roads and related infrastructure are controlled by special entities—transportation authorities, public works districts, or other bodies. This can come up with:

• Bridges, underpasses, or certain transit-adjacent roads
• Dedicated service roads
• Agency-controlled alleyways or access roads

These cases still tend to involve government-claim procedures, so identifying the correct entity early is critical.

4) Road construction contractors (unsafe temporary conditions)

Even if a government entity owns the road, private contractors may be responsible for creating or failing to correct hazards, especially in construction zones. Common issues include:

• Inadequate cones, barricades, or signage
• Improper lane shifts or confusing detours
• Uncovered trenches, uneven transitions, or steel plates
• Loose gravel, debris, or unfinished edges

A contractor’s role doesn’t automatically eliminate government liability; in some situations, responsibility may be shared.

5) Utility companies (street cuts, manholes, and patchwork failures)

Utility work can lead to road hazards if a cut is not properly restored or if covers and vaults are not properly maintained. This may include:

• Sunken utility patches that create a “dip” or edge
• Raised or uneven manhole covers
• Loose plates or exposed infrastructure

Sometimes the utility is the best target; other times a public entity remains responsible for roadway inspection and enforcement. The timeline—who worked there and when—often determines the best defendant list.

6) Adjacent property owners (limited but possible)

Private property owners are not generally responsible for the public roadway, but they can become relevant when they create hazards that affect the road, such as:

• Vegetation blocking sightlines or signs
• Runoff/drainage issues sending water, mud, or debris across the roadway
• Encroachments or objects placed into the right-of-way

These cases can be fact-specific, especially when the key issue is whether the property owner created the condition or had a duty to correct it.

7) Another driver (road hazard plus negligent driving)

Road conditions may contribute, but driver behavior can still be a substantial cause of a crash—speeding, tailgating, distracted driving, or unsafe lane changes. Even if a pothole or standing water started the chain of events, an insurer may argue:

• The driver failed to maintain a safe speed for conditions
• The driver followed too closely to react
• The driver made an unsafe evasive maneuver

In many cases, a thorough investigation looks at both the road hazard and human factors.

What makes a road condition legally “dangerous” (and what tends to be disputed)

Not every defect leads to liability. Disputes often center on:

• Severity: Was the pothole, rut, or drop-off substantial enough to pose a real risk?
• Foreseeability: Would a reasonably careful driver be expected to encounter and handle it safely?
• Causation: Did the defect actually cause the crash, or did something else (speed, distraction, impairment) break the chain?
• Notice: Did the responsible entity/party know about it (actual notice) or should they have known (constructive notice)?
• Reasonable time to fix: How long did the hazard exist, and was there time to repair or warn?
• Warnings: Were signs, cones, or markings adequate and placed with enough distance to react?

The single biggest trap in California: government claim deadlines

If a government entity might be at fault, California typically requires an administrative government claim before a lawsuit can proceed. Missing the deadline can severely limit your options.

Because the correct agency isn’t always obvious at the scene (city vs. county vs. Caltrans vs. another agency), early investigation and proper identification are often what make or break a claim.

Evidence that usually matters most (and what to gather quickly)

Road hazards change fast. Potholes get patched, debris gets cleared, signs get replaced, and construction zones move. The earlier you document, the better.

• Scene photos/video: close-up and wide shots, plus distance markers showing approach visibility
• Measurements: depth/width of pothole, height difference, length of affected area (if safe to do)
• Location proof: cross streets, mile markers, GPS coordinates, ramp names, direction of travel
• Vehicle condition: tire/wheel damage, undercarriage impacts, dash lights, alignment issues
• Witness information: other drivers, residents, nearby workers, business employees
• Police report/CHP report: what it says about roadway conditions and contributing factors
• Maintenance/complaint history: prior reports, service requests, and inspection records (often obtained later)
• Medical records: ER/urgent care notes, imaging, treatment plans

Decision table: who is most likely responsible based on the road hazard

How insurers and government defendants often push back

Even when a dangerous road condition feels obvious, you should expect arguments designed to reduce or eliminate liability. Common defenses include:

• “It wasn’t that bad.” Minimizing the defect (small pothole, minor dip, normal wear and tear).
• “We didn’t know about it.” Disputing notice or claiming the hazard appeared too recently to fix.
• “You should have avoided it.” Claiming the driver was speeding, distracted, or following too closely.
• Design immunity arguments. Asserting the roadway design was approved and therefore protected in certain circumstances.
• Causation disputes. Pointing to alternate explanations: tire blowout unrelated to the pothole, mechanical issues, impairment, or driver error.

That’s why early documentation and careful fact development can matter as much as the hazard itself.

Comparative fault: you can be partly at fault and still have a case

California follows comparative negligence. That means fault can be split among multiple parties—such as a public entity, a contractor, and a driver—and compensation may be reduced by the injured person’s percentage of fault.

In real-world road-condition crashes, comparative fault issues often revolve around:

• Speed for conditions (rain, darkness, heavy traffic)
• Lane position and following distance
• Evasive maneuvers versus controlled braking
• Whether the hazard was visible long enough to react

Example scenario (hypothetical)

Hypothetical: A driver exits a Southern California freeway at night and hits a deep, unmarked pavement drop-off where roadwork has milled the surface. The driver loses control, strikes a barrier, and suffers a shoulder injury and a concussion. Photos taken that night show no warning sign before the drop-off and minimal cone spacing. Two days later, the drop-off is patched and new signs are installed.

How liability might be analyzed:

• The public entity may be implicated because it controls the ramp and is responsible for safe conditions or proper warnings.
• The roadwork contractor may be implicated if it created the drop-off and failed to implement adequate temporary traffic control.
• The defense may argue the driver was going too fast for darkness and should have reacted sooner, raising comparative fault.

Evidence that could be decisive: time-stamped photos/video, CHP report, witness statements, project information, and records showing who placed (or failed to place) the signs and cones.

What to do after a crash caused by road conditions

• Get medical care first. Prompt treatment also creates clearer documentation of your injuries.
• Call law enforcement when appropriate. A report can help establish roadway conditions and location.
• Photograph the hazard safely. Include approach angles, lighting, and any missing signage.
• Preserve vehicle evidence. Keep damaged parts (wheel/tire), towing receipts, and repair estimates.
• Write down details while fresh. Weather, traffic, speed, lane position, what you saw, and when.
• Identify witnesses. Contractors, nearby businesses, other motorists, residents.
• Be cautious with statements. Don’t guess about fault or speed; stick to facts.
• Act quickly if a government entity may be involved. Deadlines can arrive fast, and the hazard may be repaired.

What compensation can be available (depending on the case)

Road-condition injury claims can involve the same categories of damages as other California personal injury cases, which may include:

• Medical expenses (ER care, imaging, physical therapy, follow-up specialists)
• Lost income and reduced earning ability (if injuries affect work)
• Property damage (vehicle repair/total loss, towing, rental costs)
• Pain and suffering and daily life impact

The value of a case usually depends on liability strength, quality of proof, injury severity, consistency of medical care, and whether multiple parties share fault.

When it’s not just “the road”: multi-party cases are common

Many road-condition crashes are not single-defendant cases. A thorough evaluation often considers:

• Overlapping control: city street feeding into a state-controlled ramp
• Contractor work: temporary hazards and responsibility for traffic control
• Utility involvement: recent cuts or patchwork failure
• Driver conduct: another driver’s negligence contributing to the collision

Identifying every potentially responsible party early can matter, especially when different insurers become involved and fault is disputed.

Talk to a lawyer about a road-condition claim

If you suspect dangerous road conditions caused your accident in California, it may help to speak with a personal injury attorney who handles claims involving public entities and roadway hazards. Jacob Emrani and the team at CallJacob.com can review what happened, discuss which parties may be responsible, and explain the next steps—without promising any particular outcome.

Disclaimer: This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Every case depends on specific facts, and deadlines may apply—especially when a government entity is involved. Consider consulting a qualified attorney about your particular situation.