How Long Do You Have to File a Product Liability Lawsuit in California?

By Jillian F. Hayes, Esq. · Last updated May 20, 2026

The Basic Rule: Two Years From Injury

California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 sets the statute of limitations for personal injury claims at two years from the date of injury. That includes:

• Strict product liability claims
• Negligence claims against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers
• Breach of implied warranty claims where the harm is personal injury
• Most wrongful death claims arising from a defective product

The starting point is the date the injury occurred. A defective ladder collapses and the user falls on January 15. The two-year clock starts that day. The claim must be filed in court by January 15 two years later. Filing one day late is, in nearly every case, fatal.

The Discovery Rule: When the Clock Starts Late

The straightforward "date of injury" rule works for accidents where the harm is obvious immediately. It does not work as well for injuries that develop over time, where the connection between the product and the harm is hidden, or where the manufacturer concealed the defect.

California's discovery rule addresses this. Under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not start running until the plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered:

1. That they have been injured, and
2. That their injury was caused by someone's wrongful act

Both elements have to be met. The plaintiff knowing they are sick is not enough if they do not know (and could not reasonably know) that a product caused it. Knowing a product is defective is not enough if no injury has appeared yet.

Common product liability scenarios where the discovery rule applies:

• Slow-developing illness from chemical exposure
• Hidden cancers from defective medical devices
• Hormonal or developmental injuries from pharmaceutical use
• Latent structural failures in defective home products
• Cumulative trauma from defective workplace equipment

CCP §340.8: The Toxic Exposure Statute

California has a specific statute of limitations for toxic exposure cases: Code of Civil Procedure §340.8. The rule is similar to the discovery rule but is written into the statute itself.

Under §340.8, an action for injury or illness from exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance must be brought within two years of the later of:

1. The plaintiff's first suffering of an appreciable harm, or
2. The date the plaintiff knew or should have known the harm was caused by exposure to the substance

This statute covers asbestos, industrial chemicals, contaminated drinking water, and other long-latency exposures. Mesothelioma cases routinely run on this statute because mesothelioma can appear 20 to 50 years after asbestos exposure. The injury does not exist for legal purposes until the disease manifests.

Minor Tolling Under CCP §352

Children injured by defective products receive special treatment under California Code of Civil Procedure §352. The statute of limitations is tolled (paused) while the child is under 18. The two-year clock starts on the child's 18th birthday. The deadline to file is generally the child's 20th birthday.

This rule applies regardless of whether a parent or guardian could have filed on the child's behalf earlier. The right is the child's, and the law protects it until the child reaches majority.

There is one practical caveat. Medical bills incurred by the parents for the child's injury may be subject to the regular two-year statute on a separate theory. Those bills usually have to be claimed within two years by the parents who paid them, even though the child's personal injury claim is still tolled. This is a fact-specific area, and most plaintiffs' attorneys preserve both claims by filing within two years of injury when possible.

Wrongful Death: A Separate Clock

A defective product can cause injuries that prove fatal weeks, months, or even years after the underlying event. California treats wrongful death as a separate cause of action from the decedent's personal injury claim.

The wrongful death statute of limitations is two years from the date of death, under CCP §335.1. The clock does not start at the injury. It starts when the person dies.

This matters for two reasons:

1. If the decedent's personal injury claim expired before death, the wrongful death claim may still be available (although a survival action under Code of Civil Procedure §377.20 may not be).
2. If the death occurs years after the original injury, family members have a fresh two-year window to bring a wrongful death claim, even when the decedent's own claim had already lapsed.

Family members entitled to bring wrongful death actions in California are listed in Code of Civil Procedure §377.60. They typically include the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and certain dependent parents or stepchildren.

Other Tolling Doctrines

Several other doctrines can extend the deadline. Each is narrow and fact-specific.

Fraudulent concealment. If the defendant actively concealed the defect or its causal link to the injury, the statute may be tolled until the plaintiff discovers (or reasonably could have discovered) the truth. This requires more than the defendant simply not advertising the defect. It requires affirmative concealment.

Mental incompetence. Under CCP §352, the statute is tolled for plaintiffs who lack the legal capacity to make decisions because of mental incapacity. The tolling continues until the incapacity ends.

Imprisonment. A separate tolling provision applies to plaintiffs who are imprisoned at the time the cause of action accrues, though that tolling is now limited to a maximum of two years.

Defendant out of state. Under Code of Civil Procedure §351, the statute of limitations is tolled while the defendant is absent from California. The doctrine has been narrowed by court decisions to avoid constitutional problems, but it still applies in some cases.

Equitable tolling. A court-created doctrine that allows tolling when the plaintiff has been diligently pursuing rights but in the wrong forum, or when fairness requires it.

What Counts as "Filing" the Lawsuit

The statute of limitations is satisfied by filing a complaint with the court. Mailing a demand letter to the defendant is not filing. Notifying the insurance company is not filing. Even hiring an attorney is not filing. The clock stops only when the complaint is physically filed with the court (now usually e-filed) and assigned a case number.

Most personal injury attorneys file before the deadline by a comfortable margin to avoid disputes about timeliness. If a case approaches its statute date with the attorney still investigating, the attorney typically files protectively and continues investigation.

Service of process is a separate question. Under CCP §583.210, the plaintiff has three years from filing to serve the complaint on the defendant. The statute of limitations question and the service question are distinct.

Tolling Agreements: A Negotiated Pause

Defendants and their insurance companies occasionally agree to "toll" the statute of limitations by written agreement. The agreement extends the deadline for a defined period while the parties continue settlement discussions or investigation.

Tolling agreements are a useful tool. They allow both sides to investigate without forcing the plaintiff to file a lawsuit prematurely. But they require explicit, signed agreement. Verbal assurances that "we are working on a settlement, don't worry about the deadline" are not enforceable. An adjuster who says "give us more time" is not waiving the statute of limitations.

If a tolling agreement is offered, it should be reviewed carefully by counsel before signing. The terms (length of tolling, scope of claims covered, whether the agreement waives the defense or only suspends it) all matter.

Common Mistakes That End Cases Permanently

The most common reasons valid product liability cases expire on the statute of limitations:

• Assuming the insurance company is "working on it" and will continue negotiations indefinitely
• Waiting to see if symptoms get worse before deciding to pursue a claim
• Confusing the discovery rule with simple delay (the rule has strict requirements; it is not an extension by request)
• Believing children's cases have unlimited time when in fact tolling has its limits
• Missing the wrongful death two-year clock because the underlying injury was years earlier
• Filing in the wrong court and not realizing the original filing did not toll the statute

How a Lawyer Calculates Your Specific Deadline

When a product liability attorney evaluates a new case, the deadline analysis usually follows this sequence:

1. What is the underlying injury date?
2. What type of claim applies (personal injury, wrongful death, toxic exposure)?
3. Are any tolling doctrines potentially applicable (minor, discovery rule, fraudulent concealment)?
4. Are there multiple potential defendants with potentially different timing rules?
5. What is the practical filing target (typically months before the absolute deadline to avoid risk)?

For a clean case (an adult plaintiff with a known injury date, a clear product defect, identifiable defendants), the analysis is fast. For a complex case (a child plaintiff with latent injuries from a possible exposure decades ago), the deadline calculation can require its own investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions About California Product Liability Deadlines

What is the statute of limitations for product liability in California?

Two years from the date of injury under California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1. This applies to personal injury claims based on strict product liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty when the underlying harm is personal injury.

When does the two-year clock start?

Generally on the date of the injury. For latent injuries that develop over time (toxic exposure, slow-developing illness, hidden damage), the discovery rule may delay the start of the clock until the injured person knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and its cause.

Is there a different deadline for wrongful death?

Yes. Wrongful death claims arising from a defective product must be filed within two years of the date of death under CCP §335.1, even if the injury occurred earlier. This is a separate two-year clock that begins at death.

What is the discovery rule?

The discovery rule delays the start of the statute of limitations until the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the injury and that it was caused by someone's wrongful act. The rule applies most often in latent injury cases like toxic exposure and medical device claims.

How does the statute of limitations work for child victims?

Under California Code of Civil Procedure §352, the statute of limitations is generally tolled while a child is under 18. The two-year clock starts on the child's 18th birthday. For most child product liability claims, the deadline is the child's 20th birthday.

What about asbestos and other toxic exposure cases?

Toxic exposure claims have their own statute under California Code of Civil Procedure §340.8. The two-year clock starts when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, both the physical injury and that exposure to a toxic substance was a cause.

Can the deadline be extended in any other circumstances?

Yes. Tolling may apply when the plaintiff is mentally incompetent, when the defendant fraudulently concealed the claim, when the plaintiff is imprisoned, or under various other equitable doctrines. These exceptions are narrow and fact-specific.

What happens if I miss the deadline?

If you file after the statute of limitations has run, the defendant will move to dismiss the case. The court will generally grant the motion, and the case will be barred regardless of how strong the underlying facts are. Missed deadlines are one of the most common and most permanent ways product liability claims fail.