California Vehicle Code Accident Fault — How Vehicle Code Violations Affect Fault and Injury Claims

Estimated reading time: 14 minutes

Key Takeaways

• Vehicle Code violations can strongly influence California vehicle code accident fault, but you must still prove the violation caused the crash and your injuries.
• Negligence per se lets you use a statute breach as evidence of negligence, yet the defense can rebut with emergencies or other lawful excuses.
• Traffic citations, police reports, camera footage, phone records, and EDR “black box” data can link violations to collision mechanics and liability.
• Insurers weigh violations heavily when valuing claims, but liability ultimately turns on evidence and the civil preponderance standard.
• California’s pure comparative negligence reduces damages by your percentage of fault—document evidence to minimize any apportionment.
• Move quickly: preserve videos within days, secure your vehicle for inspection, request reports, and note special deadlines for government claims.

This guide explains California vehicle code accident fault — how specific Vehicle Code violations are used to prove negligence, assign liability, and influence injury claims. Many readers want to know how particular California Vehicle Code rules will affect their ability to prove negligence or fault in a crash.

We’ll explain the legal framework (negligence vs. negligence per se), summarize key code sections (with common crash scenarios), show what evidence ties violations to collisions, and list practical steps crash victims should take. Whether your accident was an accident caused by vehicle code violation at an intersection or a rear-end crash, this guide clarifies what matters most and why.

What you’ll learn

• Legal framework: how violations relate to fault and evidence in civil claims
• Key Vehicle Code sections and typical crash scenarios
• Concrete examples that show how violations prove breach and causation
• Evidence to prove a code violation caused an accident
• Insurance and litigation implications under state driving laws car crash liability
• Practical steps for California road laws for crash victims
• Timing and filing deadlines you must meet
• FAQs and quick resources

Legal framework: vehicle code violations and fault

Negligence is proving (1) duty — a legal obligation (e.g., to obey traffic laws and exercise reasonable care), (2) breach — failure to meet that duty, (3) causation — that breach was a proximate cause of the crash, and (4) harm — measurable injury or loss. These core concepts drive California vehicle code accident fault assessments in both insurance and court settings and align with how practitioners analyze fault in real cases, as explained by leading trial lawyers on how to determine fault in a car accident.

Negligence per se arises when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a class of persons from a specific harm; the plaintiff can treat the statutory breach as evidence of negligence, but still must prove the statute’s breach caused the injury. In practice, this means you must tie the precise statute to the hazard it was intended to prevent, and show that the violation directly produced the crash and your injuries.

Burden of proof: Civil cases require proof by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), unlike criminal cases which require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. California’s agencies and courts apply this lower civil standard in negligence actions; see the DMV’s discussion of negligence and related safety actions in its DMV safety guidelines, and practitioner analysis on the civil fault standard in Panish Law’s fault guide.

Traffic citations and police reports are strong evidence but not conclusive — they are admissible, and insurers and courts consider them alongside all other facts. See the overview of how insurers and courts weigh these documents in the VictimsLawyer FAQ on fault determination. In short, a ticket helps, but you still need corroborating proof.

Common limits and defenses: Even when negligence per se is invoked, defendants can rebut by showing a valid excuse (e.g., a sudden emergency such as a heart attack, unexpected brake failure, or an unforeseeable road hazard). If the defendant presents credible evidence for one of these conditions, the factfinder may find no breach or no causation. That’s why state driving laws car crash liability ultimately turns on a complete evidentiary picture — not just a citation.

Key California Vehicle Code sections that influence fault

For each code below provide: (1) plain-language summary of the statute, (2) the typical crash scenario, (3) how a plaintiff uses the violation to show breach and causation, (4) typical evidence to collect, (5) common defenses. For official code text, consult the California Vehicle Code search.

VC 22350 — Basic Speed Law

Drivers must not drive faster than is reasonable or prudent for existing conditions, even if under the posted limit.

• Typical scenario: Excess speed for weather, curves, heavy traffic, or limited visibility causes loss of control, rear-end, or sideswipe — often increasing the violence of impact and injuries.
• How it supports fault: Unsafe speed shows breach and explains why avoidance failed or stopping distance was insufficient; fits an accident caused by vehicle code violation narrative.
• Evidence: Skid mark measurements, EDR “black box” speed/braking data, eyewitness speed estimates, dashcam or traffic-camera timestamps, and an accident reconstruction analysis.
• Defenses: Speedometer malfunction, sudden hazards (e.g., debris), necessity to avoid a worse collision, or unexpected black ice.

VC 22450 — Stop Signs

Drivers must come to a complete stop at a stop sign, then yield before proceeding.

• Typical scenario: Rolling stop leads to a T-bone or side-impact in a four-way or two-way stop intersection.
• How it supports fault: A roll-through or failure to stop is a clear breach; it frequently establishes causation for intersection collisions under California road laws for crash victims.
• Evidence: Intersection surveillance, damage patterns consistent with side impact, skid/ABS marks, police notes/citation, neighbor doorbell or business camera video.
• Defenses: Obscured or missing sign, obstructed sightlines, sudden change in cross traffic (e.g., vehicle darting from a hidden driveway).

VC 21453 — Red Lights

Drivers must stop at steady red signals and only proceed when permitted (e.g., right on red after stop if allowed).

• Typical scenario: Running a solid red and striking crossing traffic (classic T-bone).
• How it supports fault: Running a red is a statutory breach that directly matches the type of crashes the rule is designed to prevent.
• Evidence: Red-light camera footage, city/county signal-timing data and maintenance records, eyewitness accounts, citation, and damage geometry.
• Defenses: Signal malfunction, disputed yellow interval length (too short), or stale yellow transitions. Preserve timing and maintenance records early via a legal hold.
• Practice tip: Request signal-timing or maintenance records ASAP with a preservation letter; camera and municipal data can be powerful corroboration, as discussed in analysis of camera evidence in fault investigations using video.

VC 21804 — Left Turns/Right-of-Way

Drivers turning left must yield to approaching traffic close enough to be a hazard and may only turn when safe.

• Typical scenario: Left-turner crosses path of an oncoming vehicle and is struck.
• How it supports fault: Failure to yield is the breach; causation follows from the left-turner entering the oncoming lane before it was safe — key when proving driving rules affect injury claim CA outcomes.
• Evidence: Intersection or nearby business video, damage patterns (front/driver side of turning vehicle), eyewitness testimony about green arrows versus solid greens.
• Defenses: Excessive oncoming speed, misleading pavement markings, obstructed view due to large vehicles.

VC 21950 — Pedestrian Right-of-Way

Drivers must yield to pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks when the pedestrian is in the roadway.

• Typical scenario: Vehicle strikes a pedestrian in a crosswalk at an intersection.
• How it supports fault: Violation shows breach of a heightened duty to vulnerable road users; often persuasive on liability.
• Evidence: Crosswalk striping and signage photos, nearby surveillance, witness statements, police report diagram.
• Defenses: Pedestrian against a “Don’t Walk” signal, sudden darting off the curb from behind an obstruction, pedestrian intoxication.

VC 21703 — Following Too Closely

Drivers must not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable, considering speed, traffic, and road conditions.

• Typical scenario: Rear-end collision in stop-and-go or when traffic suddenly slows.
• How it supports fault: Indicates the rear driver failed to keep adequate following distance; commonly supports rear-driver liability.
• Evidence: Point-of-impact and crush photos, dashcam, surveillance video, EDR braking signatures, police citation, and timing metadata.
• Defenses: Lead vehicle braked suddenly without reason or reversed, mechanical failure, black ice.

VC 23123 / VC 23123.5 — Cellphone/Texting Restrictions

Drivers are prohibited from holding and operating handheld wireless phones while driving and from texting unless using hands‑free devices (with limited emergencies).

• Typical scenario: Distracted driver drifts lanes, rear-ends a stopped car, or blows a signal.
• How it supports fault: Handheld device use evidences distraction and breach; often closely tied to causation (failure to observe traffic).
• Evidence: Cell phone carrier records, phone-forensics metadata (time stamps), eyewitness accounts, dashcam.
• Defenses: Phone used after the crash (post-incident activity), lawful hands-free or emergency exception.

VC 23152 / VC 23153 — DUI / DUI Causing Injury

Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is prohibited; VC 23153 applies when DUI causes injury.

• Typical scenario: Single-vehicle run-off-road or multi-vehicle collisions with serious injuries after erratic driving.
• How it supports fault: DUI commonly supports negligence per se and may justify punitive exposure where conduct is egregious.
• Evidence: BAC results, officer observations, FSTs, breath/blood results, hospital toxicology, bodycam footage.
• Defenses: Improper testing procedures, mouth alcohol contamination, medical conditions, chain-of-custody issues.

VC 23103 — Reckless Driving

Operating a vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for public safety.

• Typical scenario: Racing, extreme speeding, running multiple red lights, aggressive weaving.
• How it supports fault: Demonstrates extreme culpability; useful for punitive-damage arguments and heightened insurer exposure.
• Evidence: Eyewitness accounts, video, speed calculations from EDR, prior behavior patterns or citations.
• Defenses: Emergency evasive maneuvers, sudden unforeseen hazards.

VC 27315 — Seat Belt Law

Occupants must wear seat belts; violations affect damage calculations more than liability for causing the crash.

• Role in claims: Generally not a basis for finding crash fault. Insurers may argue a “seat belt defense” to reduce damages by alleging non-use worsened injuries.
• Evidence: Medical records noting belt use, interior photos (streaking on webbing, belt lock position), airbag deployment data, police notes.
• Limits: Defense must show non-use contributed to injury severity; it does not automatically bar recovery.

Concrete examples and common scenarios

Rear‑end crash — following too closely (VC 21703)

Facts: Traffic slows on a city arterial. The lead vehicle stops for a pedestrian; the trailing driver, glancing at a text, impacts the rear bumper. The crash occurs in daylight with dry pavement.

Legal theory: VC 21703 indicates the trailing driver breached the duty to maintain a safe following distance. If handheld phone use is shown (VC 23123/23123.5), the combined breaches strengthen causation. The plaintiff still connects the breach to specific injuries and losses.

Evidence to collect:

• Close-up photos of bumper intrusion, trunk deformation, and license plate transfer marks.
• Skid length, yaw marks, and debris field with measurements.
• Dashcam or nearby surveillance footage; witness statements with contact details.
• Police report/citation and the collision diagram. Consider how reports are weighed in negotiations per fault determination FAQs.
• EDR braking data and phone metadata timestamps to corroborate distraction, as supported by discussions of digital evidence in camera-based fault analysis.

Likely defenses and rebuttals: Defense may argue the lead car “stopped for no reason” or braked suddenly. Rebut by documenting an unobstructed view, steady traffic flow, and the pedestrian’s presence. Independent witnesses and video are persuasive. For additional tactics tailored to rear-end claims, see this focused guide to rear-end collision injury claims.

Intersection T‑bone — running a red light (VC 21453)

Facts: A driver accelerates through a stale yellow that turns red and T-bones a cross-traffic vehicle lawfully proceeding on green.

Legal theory: Running a red light is a statutory breach designed to prevent right‑angle collisions. Negligence per se can apply, but you still prove timing and causation.

Evidence to collect:

• Red-light camera footage and stills; request early to prevent overwrite.
• Signal-timing charts and maintenance records; send preservation letters quickly.
• Crash photos showing damage orientation typical of a T‑bone.
• Injury reports and the traffic citation for running the red.
• See evidence best practices on videos and scene capture in Blair Ramirez’s camera evidence overview.

Defenses and responses: Alleged signal malfunction or inadequate yellow-interval timing. Rebut with municipal timing data and maintenance logs; preserve with a legal hold. For how traffic camera evidence plays into fault, see this practical explainer on using traffic light camera footage in accident claims.

Pedestrian in crosswalk — driver fails to yield (VC 21950)

Facts: A pedestrian, in a marked crosswalk with a “Walk” signal, is struck by a turning vehicle that failed to yield.

Legal theory: VC 21950 imposes a clear duty to yield; breach and causation are often straightforward if signals and crosswalk use are documented. However, note any comparative fault if a pedestrian steps into traffic against the signal.

Evidence to collect:

• Photos of the crosswalk, signage, and signal heads; note signal states and timing if known.
• Surveillance or traffic camera video; witness names and contact info.
• Lighting conditions, obstructions, and vehicle damage patterns.
• Police report diagram and statements. For structuring strong evidence packages, review this guide on evidence collection at accident scenes.

Distracted driving or DUI — phones (VC 23123/23123.5) and impairment (VC 23152/23153)

Facts: A driver, texting at a light, rolls forward and strikes a cyclist; or a DUI driver crosses a centerline causing head-on injuries.

Legal theory: Using a handheld phone supports breach; intoxication supports negligence per se, potentially punitive exposure if conduct is egregious. Still prove that the breach/impairment caused the crash sequence and injuries.

Evidence to collect:

• Phone records, app usage logs, and phone-forensics time stamps.
• BAC results, FST performance, officer narratives, hospital toxicology results.
• Black box data for speed and brake application; lane-departure video from dashcams or nearby businesses.
• Obtain records via preservation letters, discovery, or subpoenas through counsel; weigh privacy and consent requirements. Practical tactics for fault reconstruction using device and camera data are outlined in video-based fault investigations.

Evidence and proof: linking a Vehicle Code violation to fault

A code violation is persuasive only if you can link the conduct to causation and injury — evidence must show what happened, when, and why. The following items commonly strengthen claims:

1. Police reports and citations. Obtain from local agencies or CHP; reports are persuasive but not conclusive in civil claims. Adjusters and courts consider them with other facts, as explained in the VictimsLawyer fault FAQ and broader insurance practice notes at AA Law on determining fault. For how reports shape settlements, see how police reports affect claim settlements.
2. Photographs and scene videos. Capture vehicles, positions, debris, skid marks, signage, signals, weather, and your injuries. Preserve original files and metadata (EXIF time stamps).
3. Dashcams, traffic cameras, and business surveillance. Identify likely cameras and send preservation letters immediately — camera systems overwrite fast. See why video can be decisive in camera-focused fault analysis.
4. Cell phone records and phone forensics. Metadata (call/text time stamps, app activity) can prove distraction. Counsel can secure records by legal hold or subpoena; be mindful of consent and privacy rules.
5. Event Data Recorder (EDR) data. Black boxes record speed, throttle, brake application, and pre‑impact events. Preserve the vehicle promptly; extraction often requires specialized tools and experts.
6. Skid marks and physical scene evidence. Measure skid lengths with reference objects; log gouge marks and fluid trails. Retain an accident reconstruction expert for time‑distance and speed analyses when needed.
7. Witness statements. Collect names, contact info, and short written statements. Neutral witnesses are highly persuasive; learn collection techniques in how to use witnesses in a car accident claim.
8. Medical records. ER notes, imaging, diagnoses, and provider opinions that tie injuries to the crash date are critical to avoid causation disputes and to quantify damages.
9. Accident reconstruction experts. For multi-vehicle or disputed-liability crashes, expert reports on point of impact, speed analysis, and time‑distance calculations can bridge gaps.
10. Chain of custody. Log every transfer of videos, phones, and physical evidence. Authentication matters in litigation and during insurer review.

Preservation timeline:

• Immediate (24–72 hours): Seek medical care; photograph scene and vehicles; obtain the collision report number; note citation details; secure witness contacts; send preservation letters to businesses/municipalities; store your vehicle to prevent spoliation.
• Within 1–2 weeks: Request the full police/CHP report; formally send or follow up on preservation letters; consult counsel to initiate EDR and camera evidence requests.
• Longer-term: Coordinate expert EDR extraction and reconstruction before repairs alter or erase evidence; continue medical documentation and treatment compliance.

For practical overviews of how video and physical evidence shape liability decisions, review Blair Ramirez’s discussion of video in fault assessments and AA Law’s high-level fault-determination primer. If you need a refresher on obtaining official reports, CHP’s portal explains crash reporting at CHP collision reporting resources.

Insurance and litigation implications (state driving laws car crash liability)

Insurers evaluate clear liability, exposure, and damages. A Vehicle Code violation is treated as strong evidence in adjuster evaluations, but not dispositive. Claims teams weigh police reports, citations, statements, videos, and medical proof together, as summarized in the VictimsLawyer fault FAQ and a broader overview at AA Law. To communicate effectively with adjusters, consider the practical guidance in how to talk to insurance adjusters after a crash.

Citation vs. criminal charge: A traffic citation is often an infraction; a DUI is a criminal case with a higher burden of proof and separate procedures. Civil liability re-examines the facts under the preponderance standard — more likely than not — which is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Comparative fault: California follows pure comparative negligence. Definition: California reduces recovery dollar-for-dollar by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. Example: $100,000 gross damages, plaintiff 20% at fault = $80,000 recovery. For a practical explanation, see PI.law’s discussion of comparative negligence. For a deeper dive, this explainer on comparative negligence in auto accidents outlines how evidence affects allocations.

Elevated exposure: Violations like DUI or reckless driving can trigger punitive exposure and raise insurer reserves. Aggressive use of video, EDR, and toxicology findings often drives higher settlement valuations in egregious conduct cases.

Negotiation pointers:

• Use citations strategically in your demand: include the ticket, key pages from the police report, and video stills. A structured, evidence-backed demand aligns with best practices in crafting an effective demand letter.
• Engage counsel early when EDR, red-light cameras, or employer phone records may be needed; timing is critical for preservation and subpoena processes.

How driving rules affect injury claim CA

Proximate cause and foreseeability: The statute must be designed to prevent the type of harm suffered (e.g., stop signs prevent cross‑traffic collisions; speed laws prevent loss of control). You still need to show the violation was a proximate cause of your injury, not just incidental to the crash sequence.

Damage categories:

• Economic damages: Medical bills, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and property damage. Keep receipts, EOBs, pay stubs, and repair estimates.
• Non‑economic damages: Pain, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment. Comparative fault reduces these awards proportionally.
• Future damages: Ongoing medical care, therapy, surgeries, assistive devices, and future wage loss. Significant claims may require life‑care planners and vocational experts.

Common defenses and rebuttals:

• Plaintiff partly at fault. Minimize apportionment with contemporaneous photos, videos, and neutral witnesses.
• Sudden emergency or medical event. Obtain the defendant’s medical records or EMS run sheets during discovery where appropriate; scrutinize consistency with scene evidence.
• Seat belt non‑use. Document belt usage indicators and obtain medical opinions on how belt use affects injury mechanics; remember VC 27315 often impacts damages, not initial liability.

Claim strengthening tips:

• Get prompt, thorough medical care and follow your treatment plan.
• Maintain a pain and function journal; log time missed from work and out‑of‑pocket costs.
• Organize bills, records, and receipts chronologically; streamline insurer and defense review.

Practical steps after a crash (California road laws for crash victims)

Immediate on-scene actions

• Safety first: Move to a safe location if possible; call 911 for any injury.
• Medical: Get evaluated even if you feel “okay.” Delayed symptoms are common, and records protect your health and claim.
• Law enforcement: Request officer response where appropriate; note the incident number and the officer’s name and badge ID.

Documentation at the scene

• Photograph from multiple angles: vehicle positions, damage, skid marks, debris, road signs/signals, traffic light states, weather, and your injuries.
• Record time, date, precise location, and GPS coordinates if available.
• Capture license plates and insurance cards; gather witness names, phones, and brief written statements (with consent for photos of IDs when appropriate).
• Write down exact statements made by drivers or witnesses; avoid admitting fault.

Citations and reports

• If issued a citation, note the code section and citation number; request a copy and court details.
• How to get a police/CHP report: see CHP collision reporting and the DMV’s overview of negligence and crash information.
• For a deeper dive into leveraging reports, review how police reports factor into claim settlements.

Insurance interactions

• Notify your insurer promptly. Share basic facts (date, time, location, vehicles, injuries) but avoid detailed recorded statements before you’re ready.
• Save the claim number and adjuster contact info. For negotiation strategies, consider maximizing auto insurance settlements.

Evidence preservation

• Send preservation letters: “Please preserve all video, EDR, cell phone, and maintenance logs related to the incident dated [date].” Counsel can formalize these notices.
• Keep the vehicle unchanged until inspected if possible; photograph before repairs; if parts are replaced, request to retain key damaged components.
• Use dashcam files effectively; learn how to handle and submit recordings in this guide to using dashcam footage for accident claims.

Post‑crash record‑keeping

• Maintain a daily symptom and function log; store bills, receipts, medical records, repair estimates, and wage loss proof together.
• Keep a running list of providers and appointment dates; secure copies of imaging and test results.

When to call a lawyer

• Significant injuries, disputed fault, suspected DUI/recklessness, catastrophic losses, or claims involving public entities typically warrant early counsel.
• If a violation is central to the dispute, an attorney can move fast to preserve signal data, EDR, or surveillance.

When a crash was clearly an accident caused by vehicle code violation

Immediate actions: Secure the citation and police report number, gather witness contacts, and move fast to preserve video evidence. Then build a causation narrative step-by-step:

1. State the violated statute and its safety purpose. Example: VC 21453 prevents right‑angle crashes at intersections; running red lights creates foreseeable T‑bones.
2. Describe the violation with proof. Cite the camera footage, citation, EDR speed/brake data, and witness statements.
3. Connect violation to crash mechanics. Use reconstruction points: signal phases, approach speeds, impact angles, and time‑distance calculations.
4. Link injuries to the crash. Provide medical records, diagnosing provider statements, and imaging that align with crash forces.
5. Quantify damages. Itemize medical bills, lost wages, property damage, and well‑supported future care costs.

Legal tools and preservation: Send spoliation/preservation letters to at‑fault drivers, businesses (for video), and municipalities (for signal timing/maintenance). Assemble a demand package with police reports, medical records, photos, expert opinions, and a damages spreadsheet that tracks totals and sources. For more on structuring demands, see structuring an effective auto accident demand letter.

Procedure and timing: statutes, deadlines, and practical timelines

General statutes of limitations: Personal injury claims in California are typically filed within two years of the accident; property-damage claims within three years. These are general rules — confirm the exact deadline with counsel. For a dedicated overview of filing windows in California, review California’s car accident statute of limitations guide.

Government claims: Claims against public entities (city, county, state) usually require a written claim within six months. Missing this step can bar recovery, so move quickly and consult an attorney.

Evidence timing: Camera footage and witness memory degrade quickly — preserve within days. EDR downloads and vehicle inspections should occur before repairs alter evidence.

Suggested timeline checklist:

• Day 0–3: Medical care, scene photos, witness info, report to police; obtain report number.
• Day 3–14: Request police/CHP report; send preservation letters; consult an attorney if fault is disputed or injuries are significant.
• Day 14–90: Expert investigations (EDR, reconstruction), gather medical records, evaluate settlement posture and prepare a demand if appropriate.
• Months 3–24: Negotiate or file suit within the statute; consider mediation. For what to expect in mediation, see auto accident mediation.

FAQ

Does getting a traffic ticket mean I’m at fault?

No. A citation is strong evidence but not dispositive; insurers, judges, and juries consider all evidence. See the VictimsLawyer overview on fault determination for how tickets and reports are weighed. This is consistent with how California vehicle code accident fault is analyzed in civil claims.

Can a Vehicle Code violation be used to deny my insurance claim?

It can reduce or defeat your claim if the violation caused the crash, especially under comparative fault rules. Each case is fact‑specific; evidence can mitigate or shift liability depending on the full record of what happened under state driving laws car crash liability.

What if I was partly at fault — how does comparative negligence work in California?

California uses pure comparative negligence: your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. Example: $100,000 damages with 20% fault = $80,000 recovery. See a practical explanation at PI.law’s comparative negligence guide. This framework explains how driving rules affect injury claim CA outcomes even when fault is shared.

How much does a police report matter in court?

It’s persuasive but not conclusive. Factfinders weigh reports alongside witnesses, videos, physical evidence, and medical records. For practice-oriented insights, see Blair Ramirez on using video and reports and a broad overview in AA Law’s fault discussion.

How do I get cell phone records or traffic camera footage?

Police may obtain records in criminal matters. In civil cases, attorneys use preservation letters, discovery requests, or subpoenas to secure data. Move quickly — many systems overwrite in days. Always consider privacy and consent rules when handling phone data. For handling camera evidence, see this primer on red‑light camera footage in accident claims.

Conclusion

Vehicle Code violations are powerful evidence of negligence but must be tied to causation and injury. Prompt evidence preservation and clear documentation maximize chances of recovery.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified California personal injury attorney.

If you’ve been injured and a Vehicle Code violation may have caused your crash, consider consulting a California personal injury attorney to preserve evidence and assess claim options.

Need help now? Get a free and instant case evaluation by Visionary Law Group. See if your case qualifies within 30-seconds at https://eval.visionarylawgroup.com/auto-accident.