California Construction Accident Settlement Calculator
Estimate compensation under California's Privette Doctrine — hirer generally not liable for subcontractor injuries. Recovery requires fitting into Hooker, Kinsman, or SeaBright exceptions.
⚠ CALIFORNIA PRIVETTE DOCTRINE: Default NO liability for GCs/owners. Recovery requires Hooker (retained control + affirmative contribution), Kinsman (concealed hazard), or SeaBright (nondelegable statutory duty) exceptions.
Su lesión
Su Acuerdo Estimado
$6,000 — $6,000
Dolor y sufrimiento = $15,000 en facturas médicas × multiplicador de gravedad de 0.0. Sus facturas ya están incluidas en esa cifra, por lo que no se suman de nuevo.
La compensación laboral es un sistema sin culpa: sus beneficios no se reducen porque usted haya sido parcial o totalmente responsable del accidente.
La compensación laboral no paga dolor y sufrimiento. A diferencia de un reclamo de lesiones personales, solo cubre el tratamiento médico y una parte de sus salarios perdidos — por lo que no se incluye ningún monto por dolor y sufrimiento arriba.
Esta cifra no incluye una indemnización por deterioro permanente. Si su lesión deja limitaciones duraderas, la mayoría de los estados agregan un pago separado según la calificación de deterioro de un médico y un cronograma legal.
Si alguien que no sea su empleador causó la lesión — un subcontratista, un conductor, una máquina defectuosa — también podría tener un reclamo separado de lesiones personales contra esa parte, y ese reclamo puede incluir dolor y sufrimiento.
Keep this estimate — it is gone when you close the tab.
Workers' Compensation Wage Benchmark — New York State claims only
Across New York State claims only, this benchmark is based on 5,586,588 real payments totaling $139.7B from official New York State workers' comp claims.
Average
$25K
Median
$20K
25th %ile
$13K
90th %ile
$44K
Source: New York State Workers' Compensation Board (via data.ny.gov). These figures come from New York State claims only and do not describe benefit levels in other states. Actual payouts may vary based on individual circumstances.
Revisado Editorialmente — Contenido revisado en cuanto a exactitud utilizando investigación legal publicada, datos gubernamentales y registros judiciales verificados. Vea nuestra metodología
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor
Why California Is the Hardest State to Sue a Construction GC
California is the near-opposite of New York. Under the Privette Doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689, 1993), a hirer (property owner or general contractor) is generally NOT liable for injuries to a subcontractor's employees. The reasoning: the contractor was paid a market rate that included the cost of providing workers' compensation, and the contractor controls the worksite details. Workers' comp is the remedy against the sub employer; the GC stays out of the case.
To recover against a GC or property owner in California, you must fit your case into one of three recognized exceptions: (1) the Hooker exception (Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198, 2002) — the hirer retained control over safety AND exercised that control in a way that AFFIRMATIVELY contributed to the injury; (2) the Kinsman exception (Kinsman v. Unocal Corp., 2005) — the hirer knew of a hazardous condition that the contractor could not reasonably have discovered, and failed to warn; (3) the SeaBright exception (SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, 52 Cal.4th 590, 2011) — a pre-existing statute imposes a specific duty on the hirer NOT arising from the contracted work.
The 2024 CBRE v. Superior Court decision shows the Hooker exception is still actively litigated when a landowner directs work that conflicts with legal requirements. California has no statutory cap on compensatory damages in construction cases (MICRA applies only to medical malpractice). The challenge is reaching the GC at all — once you establish a Privette exception, California juries are generous.
California Construction Law — Statutes + Key Doctrines
California has no Scaffold Law. Privette is a judicial doctrine, not a statute — but it has statutory support from the Workers' Comp exclusivity rules:
Cal. Labor Code §§ 3600-3602
Workers' comp exclusivity — §3602(a) makes WC sole remedy against employer
Cal. Labor Code §2750.5
Presumption unlicensed contractors are employees for WC
Cal. Civil Code §1714
General negligence duty of care (premises liability, retained control)
CCP §335.1
2-year PI SOL
Privette Exceptions — Your Three Paths to GC Recovery
To defeat Privette and reach a GC/owner, your case must fit one of three exceptions. Hooker (most common, most litigated): the hirer retained control over safety AND exercised it in a way that AFFIRMATIVELY contributed to the injury. Courts distinguish 'affirmatively contributed' (liable — e.g., GC ordered work under a live power line) from 'merely failed to prevent' (NOT liable — e.g., GC saw hazard but didn't intervene). 2024 CBRE shows the line is fact-intensive. Kinsman: the hirer knew of a concealed hazard the contractor couldn't reasonably discover, and failed to warn. Example: property owner knew of buried electrical lines and failed to disclose to the excavation sub. SeaBright: a pre-existing statute imposes a specific duty on the hirer NOT arising from the contracted work. Narrow — Cal-OSHA duties arising FROM the work ARE delegable and do NOT overcome Privette. Your attorney will allege all three exceptions at pleading and focus on the strongest at summary judgment.
California Workers' Compensation Exclusivity
Cal. Labor Code §3602 bars suit against your direct employer for work-related injuries — workers' comp is the exclusive remedy. Narrow exceptions: (1) intentional physical assault by employer; (2) employer fraudulent concealment of an existing injury that aggravates; (3) employer failure to secure WC coverage (then you can sue in tort). Third-party suits (against non-employers) are fully preserved and can run concurrent with WC. Cal. Labor Code §2750.5 presumes unlicensed contractors are employees for WC purposes — meaning if a sub is unlicensed, the hirer may inherit direct employer status and the associated WC responsibilities. General PI SOL: 2 years under CCP §335.1. WC claim: 1 year from injury under Lab. Code §5405. Construction defect residential: 10 years from close of escrow under Civ. Code §896 et seq.
No Compensatory Damage Caps — But MICRA Confusion to Avoid
California has no cap on compensatory damages (economic + non-economic) in general personal injury cases, including construction. The MICRA cap (originally $250K non-economic, raised under 2023 AB 35 phasing to $750K by 2033) applies ONLY to medical malpractice — NOT to construction. Defense attorneys sometimes attempt to extend MICRA logic to other tort contexts; this is rejected by California courts. Punitive damages have no statutory cap but are subject to federal due-process proportionality review (typically single-digit multiplier max). Construction workers' comp medical and indemnity benefits are schedule-based and substantial but not the same as a tort recovery. If you can establish a Privette exception, California is one of the most generous states for compensatory recovery.
Landmark California Construction Verdicts
When Privette exceptions are successfully invoked, California construction verdicts are substantial. Recent cases:
| Amount | Year | Case / Injury |
|---|---|---|
| $28M | — | San Francisco scaffolding fall — Permanent paralysis (scaffold not properly secured) |
| $25M | — | San Diego construction worker — Traumatic spinal cord injury, inadequate fall protection |
| $7M | — | Sandoval v. QualcommHooker exception against property owner |
| $6M | — | Degala v. John StewartMediator settlement, Hooker exception |
California Privette Doctrine & Construction Accident FAQs
What is the Privette Doctrine and why does it matter for my case?
The Privette Doctrine (Privette v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 689, 1993) establishes that a property owner or GC is generally NOT LIABLE for injuries to a subcontractor's employees. The reasoning is that the contractor was paid a market rate including workers' comp cost, and the contractor controls the worksite details. The doctrine is the #1 obstacle in every California construction injury case — defendants invoke it at the start of every case. If Privette applies and no exception is established, the claim against the GC/owner is dismissed at summary judgment. Your entire case strategy must focus on which exception fits your facts.
How do I prove the Hooker exception in California?
Hooker (Hooker v. Dept. of Transportation, 27 Cal.4th 198, 2002) requires: (1) the hirer RETAINED CONTROL over safety at the jobsite through contract language or actual conduct; AND (2) the hirer EXERCISED that retained control in a way that AFFIRMATIVELY CONTRIBUTED to your injury. The key distinction is 'affirmatively contributed' vs. 'merely failed to prevent'. Examples that work: GC directed work near energized power lines; GC removed fall protection to speed up work; GC ordered continued work in unsafe weather. Examples that fail: GC had the authority to stop unsafe work but didn't; GC enforced OSHA compliance on paper only. 2024 CBRE v. Superior Court shows the line remains fact-intensive — your attorney needs specific instances of GC directives that caused or contributed to the injury.
What if the property owner knew about a hidden danger but didn't tell us?
The Kinsman exception may apply. Under Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005), the hirer is liable if: (1) the hirer knew of a hazardous condition on the property; (2) the condition was CONCEALED — the contractor could not reasonably discover it through normal inspection; (3) the hirer failed to warn. Classic examples: buried electrical lines, gas pipelines, asbestos in walls, weakened structural components. The condition must be truly concealed — if the contractor could have discovered it through reasonable due diligence, Kinsman does not apply. Your attorney will investigate: property deed history, prior incident reports, maintenance records, utility markouts, environmental assessments. If the hirer had knowledge that the contractor couldn't reasonably access, Kinsman is a strong path.
Can I sue my own employer in California for a construction accident?
Generally no. Cal. Labor Code §3602 makes workers' comp the exclusive remedy against your direct employer. Narrow exceptions: (1) employer's intentional physical assault; (2) employer's fraudulent concealment of a prior injury that aggravates; (3) employer's failure to secure workers' comp coverage. Undocumented workers have full WC rights under California law regardless of immigration status. If you are uninsured at work (employer failed to carry WC), you can sue in tort AND file with the California Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund. For most injured construction workers, the path is: (1) collect WC from your employer, (2) sue third parties (GC under Privette exceptions, equipment manufacturers, property owners) concurrent with the WC claim.
How long do I have to file a California construction injury lawsuit?
General personal injury SOL: 2 years from injury under CCP §335.1. Workers' comp claim: 1 year from injury under Lab. Code §5405. Construction defect residential claims: 10 years from close of escrow under Civ. Code §896 et seq. For claims against California public entities, there is a 6-month Government Claim requirement under Gov. Code §911.2 — you MUST file a written claim with the public entity within 6 months of the injury, or your tort claim is barred. This is easy to miss and devastating. If you were injured on a public project (Caltrans, UC system, county facility), consult an attorney within days — not weeks. Otherwise the 2-year SOL applies.
Active California Construction Litigation
Active legal debates (as of April 2026):
- 'Affirmatively contributed' vs 'failed to prevent' under Hooker is fact-specific, courts split at summary judgment
- 2024 CBRE decision adds complexity to regulatory-duty scenarios
Informational only — consult a licensed attorney for case-specific advice.
Primary Sources
- www.greenbergrubylaw.com/privette-doctrine
- calconstructionlawblog.com/2023/02/13/just-because-you-caused-it-doesnt-mean-you-own-it-the-hooker-exception-to-the-privette-doctrine
- calconstructionlawblog.com/2024/10/21/the-privette-doctrine-and-its-exceptions-court-of-appeal-grapples-with-the-easy-and-not-so-easy
- www.wshblaw.com/publication-navigating-californias-workers-compensation-exclusivity-rule-in-civil-litigation-and-settlement-strategy
Other State Construction Accident Calculators
New York
Labor Law §240 — absolute liability (only US state)
Pennsylvania
Statutory Employer Doctrine — McDonald 5-prong
Illinois
Post-SWA common-law negligence (Carney)
Massachusetts
Corsetti retained-control + §28 double benefits
All States — Main Construction Calculator
Nationwide ranges + Fatal Four hazards + third-party liability theories
Related
Other Calculators for California
Each California calculator reflects state-specific laws (caps, statutes of limitations, comparative-negligence rules) and uses California verdict data where available.
Cities in California
Construction Accident Calculators by State
Construction injury settlement values and labor-law rules vary by state: