Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Dentons has advised NMC Healthcare Group, one of the UAE’s leading private healthcare providers, and Elegant Medical Center Oman (EMC) on the sale of their Omani businesses to Tawoos Group, a deal that reshapes both sides’ healthcare portfolios.
The deal includes two hospitals and six clinics across Oman. For Tawoos Group, it marks a major step in expanding local healthcare, while for NMC it frees resources to refocus on its UAE operations, where the group runs over 180 entities with 11,000 staff treating five million patients a year.
The divestment was complex, involving creditors, regulators, staff, and patients. Dentons led the legal work across banking, restructuring, litigation, and corporate law, with Deloitte as financial adviser and Dentons & Co Oman Branch as legal counsel.
Sadaf Buchanan, Partner at Dentons, reflected on the outcome:
"It has been our privilege to support NMC in alignment with the Tawoos Group. Working closely with NMC and its advisers, we were able to structure a deal that satisfied the group’s strategic goals while also addressing the interests of creditors, more than 600 employees and thousands of patients. The transaction highlights Dentons' deep sector knowledge and the advantage of having on-the-ground Oman law expertise."
From NMC’s perspective, the sale is about sharpening its focus while ensuring continuity for Omani patients. David Hadley, CEO of NMC Healthcare, said:
"NMC has been proud to serve communities in Oman through our network of hospitals and medical facilities. At a time when we are strategically focusing on our core operations and planned investments in the UAE, we welcome the acquisition of NMC Oman by Tawoos, a leading, trusted, and well-established Omani business with a proven track record of fostering innovation and long-term growth—key drivers of high-quality healthcare delivery."
"We look forward to working closely with Tawoos in the coming months to ensure continuity of care for patients and a smooth transition of ownership."
The deal was also described by Christopher Habib, NMC’s Chief Strategy Officer, as a key milestone:
"The acquisition of NMC Oman by Tawoos Group was a key step in optimising our portfolio to free up investment for the UAE. At the same time, it secures a strong future for our patients and staff in Oman."
"We are grateful to our advisers, including Dentons, for their role in ensuring the process ran smoothly from start to finish."
Dentons team advising NMC was led by Buchanan, together with partners Jamie Gibson and Dali Al Habboub, and Associated Partner Yaqdhan Al-Busaidi. They were supported by Senior Associates Michael Kneebone, Fatma Al Amri, and Fatima Al-Sabahi; Associates Malaak Al Balushi and Abdullah Al Busaidi; and trainee Mohammed Al Farsi.
Tawoos Group is a leading Omani family-owned conglomerate founded in 1982 by HH Sayyid Shabib bin Taimur Al Said. Over the past four decades, it has grown into one of Oman’s largest diversified businesses—spanning sectors such as agriculture, power & telecoms, defence support, hospitality, real estate, and financial services. The Group maintains a forward-looking approach through its ventures in investment and family office, venture capital, and global capital markets. Key leaders include Chairman Samir J. Fancy, Chief Investment Officer Sameer Ul Haque, and Finance Director Nilanjan Gupta.
NMC Healthcare Group is one of the UAE’s largest private healthcare providers, founded in 1975. Today it operates a wide network of hospitals, clinics, and specialty centres, treating millions of patients each year. Headquartered in Abu Dhabi, the group is known for its focus on high-quality, personalised care and its role in advancing healthcare standards across the Middle East.
Dentons, founded in 2013, is the world’s largest law firm, operating in over 80 countries. With its unique polycentric structure, Dentons offers clients access to top-tier legal talent and deep local insight across key global markets. The firm is recognized for its commitment to innovation, client service, and helping organizations navigate complex legal and business challenges in a rapidly evolving world.
In California, punitive damages are a form of compensation not meant to cover a victim's losses but to punish a wrongdoer and deter others from similar conduct.
Unlike typical damages for medical bills and lost wages, punitive damages are only awarded in cases where the defendant's conduct was particularly egregious. To receive them, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
The legal standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is a significantly higher burden of proof than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used for compensatory damages.
While the latter only requires a plaintiff to show that it is more likely than not that their claim is true, "clear and convincing evidence" requires that the evidence be so clear, distinct, and weighty as to make the jury's belief in the truth of the facts highly probable.
This heightened standard is a constitutional safeguard to prevent punitive damages from being awarded in a casual or arbitrary manner.
The concept of punitive damages has a long history in common law, dating back to 18th-century England, where courts sought to compensate victims not just for their injuries but for the indignity and outrage caused by the defendant's conduct.
Over time, the focus shifted from compensation to punishment and deterrence. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has placed constitutional limits on punitive damage awards under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to prevent awards that are grossly excessive or arbitrary.
A landmark case, BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, established three key "guideposts" for juries to consider when evaluating a punitive damages award:
Unlike many states, California does not have a statutory cap on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in most personal injury cases.
However, the constitutional limitations set by the Supreme Court serve as a de facto check on excessive awards.
Punitive damages are typically sought in cases involving drunk driving accidents, elder abuse, sexual assault, and corporate misconduct, such as the knowing concealment of a product defect.
California personal injury law is rooted in the concept of negligence, which requires a victim to prove that the at-fault party breached a duty of care, and that breach caused their injuries and damages.
The state operates under a pure comparative negligence system, which allows an injured party to recover damages even if they are partially at fault.
The state's laws have seen some recent reforms, including a phase-out of the non-economic damage cap in medical malpractice cases and stricter liability for certain distracted driving offenses.
For a more detailed look into these principles, you can read this article.
In California, the statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. For most personal injury claims, this is two years from the date of the injury. However, there are exceptions.
For instance, claims against a government entity often have a shorter deadline, typically six months, to file an administrative claim.
For medical malpractice, the period is generally one year from the discovery of the injury or three years from the date of the injury, whichever is sooner. Failing to file within the correct time frame usually results in the loss of the right to pursue a claim.
California follows a pure comparative negligence rule. This means an injured person can still recover compensation even if they are found to be partly at fault for their own injuries.
However, the amount of compensation is reduced in proportion to their percentage of blame. For example, if a jury awards a plaintiff $100,000 in damages but finds them to be 30% at fault for the accident, their final compensation will be reduced to $70,000.
This system contrasts with states that have a modified comparative fault rule, where a plaintiff may be barred from recovering any damages if their fault exceeds a certain percentage (e.g., 50%).
To win a personal injury case based on negligence in California, a plaintiff must prove four key elements:
Insurance companies are central to the personal injury claims process. They employ adjusters to investigate claims, determine liability, and negotiate settlements.
Their primary goal is to minimize payouts to protect their bottom line. Initial settlement offers are often low, and adjusters may use tactics like requesting recorded statements to find information that can be used to devalue a claim or shift blame.
This is a primary reason many victims seek legal representation to ensure they receive fair compensation.
If a personal injury case goes to trial, a jury is responsible for determining liability and the amount of damages. The jury is instructed on the law by the judge and must follow a specific process:
The concept of duty of care is the foundation of negligence law. It's the legal obligation to act in a way that doesn't cause harm to others.
California law, under Civil Code section 1714(a), states that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their "want of ordinary care or skill." This duty varies depending on the circumstances.
For example, a driver has a duty to follow traffic laws, while a property owner has a duty to maintain their premises safely for visitors.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a party liable for harm regardless of fault or negligence. In California, this applies in two main areas:
In these cases, a victim doesn't have to prove the defendant was negligent, only that the defect or bite caused their injury.
The legal landscape is always changing. As of 2025, several new laws have affected personal injury claims:
In a California personal injury case, a victim can recover several types of damages:
Punitive Damages: As discussed earlier, these are awarded in rare cases to punish a defendant for particularly malicious, oppressive, or fraudulent conduct.
Q: How are punitive damages calculated in California?
A: There is no fixed formula for calculating punitive damages. A jury considers the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio of punitive damages to the compensatory damages, and the defendant's financial condition. The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that a ratio exceeding a single digit is often considered unconstitutionally excessive.
Q: Can I get punitive damages for a car accident in California?
A: Yes, punitive damages can be awarded in a car accident case, but only in specific circumstances. A plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the at-fault driver acted with malice, oppression, or fraud—such as in a case involving a drunk driver with a history of DUIs or a driver who intentionally used their car as a weapon.
Q: Is there a cap on punitive damages in California?
A: No, California does not have a statutory cap on punitive damages for most personal injury cases. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutional limitations and the established "single-digit ratio" serve as a legal check to prevent grossly excessive awards.
Q: What is the average personal injury settlement in California?
A: There is no true "average" settlement, as each case is unique. The value of a claim depends on a wide range of factors, including the severity of the injuries, the total amount of medical bills and lost wages, the strength of the evidence of negligence, and the availability of insurance coverage.
The high-profile lawsuit brought by Texas against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard has entered a new phase. Nearly a year after Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the case alleging collusion to restrict coal production, the claims remain active and are moving forward in court.
In November 2024, Texas and 12 other Republican-led states filed suit against BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, alleging that coordinated climate initiatives amounted to illegal collusion.
The complaint argues that such efforts inflated energy costs and targeted coal, a sector that remains central to U.S. power generation.
Announcing the case, Attorney General Ken Paxton stated:
“Texas will not tolerate the illegal weaponisation of the financial industry in service of a destructive, politicised ‘environmental’ agenda. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street formed a cartel to rig the coal market, artificially reduce the energy supply, and raise prices. Their conspiracy has harmed American energy production and hurt consumers. This is a stunning violation of State and federal law.”
The lawsuit specifically cites alliances such as Climate Action 100+, portraying them as agreements that discouraged investment in coal rather than simple policy discussions.
On August 1, 2025, Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas issued a ruling that keeps the lawsuit very much alive. While he tossed out three of the 21 claims, he allowed the core antitrust arguments to proceed.
That means the states now get to dig deeper into emails, board minutes, and internal communications to see if the asset managers really did agree to restrict coal production.
The defendants, unsurprisingly, see things differently. BlackRock has dismissed the case as legally unsound, calling it an attempt to “re-write antitrust law” based on what it described as an “absurd theory.” The firm has maintained that its investment decisions are guided by fiduciary duty, not politics.
Vanguard and State Street have echoed that stance, portraying the case as a politically motivated attack on standard investment practices.
In a statement responding to the lawsuit and subsequent filings, BlackRock argued:
“Forcing asset managers to divest from coal companies will harm their ability to access capital and is likely to lead to higher energy prices.”
Adding weight to the states’ case, the FTC and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division jointly filed a Statement of Interest, a move that drew national attention.
The agencies stressed that agreements among investors that effectively restrict output are not shielded from antitrust law, even when framed around climate or ESG initiatives.
While FTC Chair Lina Khan did not issue a direct public quote on this case, the joint filing underscored her agency’s willingness to test the limits of ESG coordination under competition law.
A ruling in favor of the states could redefine how Wall Street approaches ESG investing, with coordinated climate pledges potentially viewed through the lens of antitrust law.
The outcome may influence energy costs, the role of coal in U.S. markets, and the global framework for climate-focused investing.
With discovery underway and no settlement on the horizon, the lawsuit is poised to become a pivotal test of how far antitrust law can reach into financial and energy policy.
When was the Texas coal lawsuit filed?
November 27, 2024.
Who are the defendants?
BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street.
What laws are in play?
Mainly the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act, plus state statutes.
What stage is the lawsuit at now?
As of September 2025, most claims are moving forward after a federal judge denied dismissal.
Why is the lawsuit significant?
It could reshape ESG investing and alter how asset managers approach climate-focused strategies.
Victims of personal injury in California must prove that the defendant's negligence caused their harm. This is a crucial element in most personal injury lawsuits. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate four key elements:
These core principles form the foundation of most personal injury claims in the state, from car accidents to slip-and-fall incidents. For a deeper breakdown, see the Core Principles of California Personal Injury Law in 2025.
The legal burden on the plaintiff is to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means they must show it is more likely than not (over a 50% chance) that the defendant was negligent.
California personal injury law is rooted in the principle of negligence, which requires plaintiffs to prove the four elements mentioned above. This framework is central to how liability is determined and how compensation is awarded.
While negligence is the most common legal theory, other principles like strict liability can apply in specific cases, such as those involving defective products or dog bites.
Another core principle that defines California's legal landscape is pure comparative negligence.
This system allows an injured person to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for the accident, which differs from states that use a modified comparative negligence rule where a plaintiff can't recover if they are 50% or more at fault.
The statute of limitations is a strict deadline for filing a lawsuit. In California, for most personal injury claims, this deadline is two years from the date of the injury.
If the lawsuit is not filed within this timeframe, the court will likely dismiss the case, and the injured party will lose their right to seek compensation.
However, there are exceptions. Claims against a government entity, for instance, have a much shorter deadline—typically six months to file an administrative claim. For minors, the clock doesn't start ticking until they turn 18. An important exception is the discovery rule.
This rule extends the statute of limitations to two years from the date the victim discovered or reasonably should have discovered the injury and its cause, rather than the date of the incident itself.
This is particularly relevant in cases of medical malpractice or latent injuries where the harm isn't immediately apparent. It's crucial for injury victims to be aware of these deadlines to avoid losing their legal recourse.
California operates under a pure comparative fault system. This means that an injured person's compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault for the accident.
For example, if a jury awards a plaintiff $100,000 but determines they were 20% at fault, the plaintiff will only receive $80,000.
This system allows a person to recover damages even if they were more at fault than the defendant.
This principle is vital because defense attorneys and insurance companies often try to shift blame to the plaintiff to minimize their financial liability. The final determination of fault is typically made by a jury in a trial or through negotiation during the settlement process.
Unlike compensatory damages, which are meant to reimburse a victim for their losses, punitive damages are designed to punish a defendant for particularly egregious behavior and to deter others from similar conduct.
Punitive damages are not awarded in typical negligence cases. To be eligible, a plaintiff must prove with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
California law requires a separate hearing to determine the amount of punitive damages, and courts must ensure the award is reasonable and proportionate to the harm, as excessive punitive damages can violate a defendant's due process rights.
Insurance companies are central to the personal injury claims process. Their primary role is to evaluate a claim and negotiate a settlement. Insurance adjusters will investigate the accident, review medical records, assess liability, and determine the value of a claim based on the available evidence.
It's important to remember that an insurer's goal is to limit its payout. Initial settlement offers are often low, and adjusters may use tactics like questioning the severity of injuries or attempting to shift blame to the victim.
This is why legal representation is often essential. An experienced personal injury attorney understands these tactics and can negotiate for a fair settlement or, if necessary, take the case to trial.
Additionally, if an insurance company acts unreasonably in handling a claim, for example, by denying a legitimate claim without proper investigation, the victim may have grounds for a separate bad faith lawsuit against the insurer.
If a personal injury case goes to trial, a jury is responsible for making several key decisions. They must determine the facts of the case, including whether the defendant was negligent and to what degree.
The jury then assigns a percentage of fault to each party involved, a process guided by California's comparative fault system. For detailed explanations on what they must consider, see the California Civil Jury Instructions for Negligence (CACI – July 2025 Supplement).
Finally, the jury calculates the amount of damages the plaintiff is entitled to. They must consider both economic losses, such as medical bills and lost wages, and non-economic losses like pain and suffering.
The jury's verdict is a direct reflection of the evidence and testimony presented by both sides during the trial. Jury instructions, provided by the judge, are crucial in this process as they outline the specific laws and principles, such as comparative fault, that the jury must apply to the facts of the case.
The duty of care is a legal obligation to act reasonably and avoid harming others. The standard for what constitutes "reasonable care" depends on the circumstances of the case.
For example, a driver has a duty to obey traffic laws and operate their vehicle safely. A property owner has a duty to maintain a safe environment for visitors.
Whether a duty of care existed is a question of law for a judge to decide. A jury then determines if the defendant's actions breached that duty by failing to act as a reasonably prudent person would have in the same situation.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds a defendant responsible for a plaintiff's injuries regardless of whether they were negligent. In California, this applies in two main types of cases:
This doctrine removes the burden of proving negligence, making it easier for a plaintiff to recover compensation in these specific scenarios.
The principle may also apply to abnormally dangerous activities like demolition or handling explosives, where the risk of harm is so high that the defendant is held responsible for any resulting injury, even if they took all necessary precautions.
A significant reform impacting personal injury law is the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). Recent amendments to MICRA, phased in over several years, have increased the long-standing cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.
In 2025, the new cap for wrongful death cases and cases not involving wrongful death is set to a higher amount, allowing for greater compensation for pain and suffering in these specific claims.
These changes are a direct response to rising healthcare costs and the need to provide more equitable compensation for catastrophic injuries caused by medical negligence. You can find the full details of these and other deadlines in the California Courts’ guide to statutes of limitation.
In a successful personal injury claim, a plaintiff can recover various types of damages, which are generally categorized as follows:
What are the four elements of negligence in California?
The four elements are duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. A plaintiff must prove all four to succeed in a personal injury claim.
How long do you have to file a personal injury lawsuit in California?
Generally, you have two years from the date of the injury. Exceptions include claims against government entities (six months) and cases involving the discovery rule.
What is California’s comparative fault rule?
California follows a pure comparative fault system, meaning plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are mostly at fault, though compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
What is the MICRA reform in California?
The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) sets limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Amendments phased in by 2025 raised these caps, especially for wrongful death cases.
Can you get punitive damages in a California negligence case?
Punitive damages are rare in negligence cases. They may be awarded if the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
Kirkland & Ellis LLP has advised Windjammer Capital, a private equity firm known for investing in middle-market companies, through its recent acquisition of PDU Cables and Engineered Products Company (EPCO).
The deal was completed in partnership with company management and the Lee Family. Terms were not disclosed.
“As a market leading provider of critical components to data centers, PDU Cables is ready to meet accelerated demand driven by AI, IoT, connected devices, and continued cloud computing proliferation.” said Ryan Pertz, Managing Director at Windjammer.
“PDU is well positioned to support this market growth in its core power cabling segment, with opportunity to grow the Company’s addressable market through adjacent products and services, both organically and via M&A.”
“PDU Cables has a long history of serving our electrical contractor and owner/operator customers with rapid turnaround times and ease of install.” added Troy Peterson, CEO of PDU Cables and EPCO.
“We chose Windjammer as a partner in order to continue meeting the highest standards of our customers and scale our business to meet the market demands.”
Citizens JMP Securities acted as exclusive financial advisor to Windjammer. Baird advised PDU Cables and EPCO, with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP as legal counsel.
Kirkland’s team included corporate partners Vlad Kroll and Alex Mieszkalski, debt finance partners Brian Ford and Shawn Bagdasarian, and tax partner Vin Thorn.
Windjammer Capital is a private equity firm founded in 1990 with offices in Newport Beach, CA, and Waltham, MA. The firm focuses on control investments in niche middle-market businesses, supporting management with strategic and operational resources. With over $2 billion in committed capital and experience across 100+ acquisitions, Windjammer is known for long-term partnerships built on transparency, integrity, and collaboration.
PDU Cables, founded in 1981 and based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, is a leading North American supplier of branch-circuit power distribution cable assemblies for mission-critical data centers. Its UL-listed products are installed in more than 5,000 facilities, backed by a reputation for fast custom fabrication and reliable service.
Kirkland & Ellis is a leading international law firm, founded in 1909, with more than 4,000 attorneys across offices in 22 global cities. The firm specializes in private equity, M&A, complex corporate transactions, investment fund formation, restructurings, high-stakes commercial and intellectual property litigation, and white-collar and government disputes. Known for delivering top-tier advice and highly tailored service, Kirkland emphasizes quality, integrity, entrepreneurialism, and collaboration in everything they do.
Navigating a personal injury claim in California involves understanding a complex set of laws, deadlines, and legal principles. At the very heart of this process lies the Statute of Limitations, which is a strict legal deadline for filing a lawsuit.
In California, for most personal injury claims, this deadline is two years from the date of the injury.
However, this is not a universal rule, and there are many exceptions. For instance, if the claim is against a government entity, the deadline can be as short as six months. Additionally, if the injured person was a minor at the time of the incident, the statute of limitations may not begin to run until they turn 18.
The "discovery rule" can also extend the deadline in cases where the injury was not immediately apparent, starting the two-year clock from the time the injury was or should have been discovered.
Missing this critical deadline, no matter how strong your case, will almost certainly lead to its dismissal by the court. The official statute governing the general personal injury statute of limitations is found in California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.
For a broader look at the key legal concepts shaping injury cases this year, see our Core Principles of California Personal Injury Law in 2025 guide.
California operates under the legal doctrine of "pure comparative negligence," which is a generous system for plaintiffs. Unlike states that follow "modified comparative negligence" where a plaintiff is barred from recovery if they are 50% or more at fault, California allows an injured person to recover damages even if they are largely to blame for the accident.
The court or jury will determine the percentage of fault for each party involved. The total compensation awarded is then reduced in direct proportion to the plaintiff's percentage of blame.
For example, if a jury awards a plaintiff $200,000 for their injuries, but finds they were 25% at fault for the accident, their final award will be reduced to $150,000. Even if the plaintiff is found to be 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of their total damages.
This system ensures that all parties are held accountable for their share of negligence, while still allowing the injured party to receive some form of compensation. This framework is a cornerstone of California's tort law and influences nearly every personal injury settlement negotiation and trial.
This concept was solidified in the landmark California Supreme Court case, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975).
The court's decision to shift from the harsh rule of contributory negligence to a system of pure comparative negligence was a major reform that revolutionized personal injury law in the state, allowing for a more equitable distribution of liability.
To successfully prove a personal injury claim based on negligence in California, a plaintiff must establish four key elements by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it is more likely than not that the defendant was at fault. These four elements form the legal foundation of the claim:
Punitive damages are a powerful but rarely awarded form of compensation. Unlike compensatory damages, which are intended to make the victim whole again, punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant for particularly malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct.
They also serve as a deterrent to prevent similar behavior from others in the future.
Under California Civil Code Section 3294, a plaintiff must prove with "clear and convincing evidence"—a higher standard than "preponderance of the evidence"—that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. This is a significant hurdle to overcome.
Examples of conduct that might warrant punitive damages include a drunk driver with a history of DUIs who causes a serious accident, a corporation that knowingly markets a dangerous and defective product, or a person who commits an intentional assault and battery.
The official text of the law defining punitive damages can be found in California Civil Code § 3294.
The amount of punitive damages is not capped by a specific dollar amount in California, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that they must be "reasonable and proportionate" to the compensatory damages and the defendant's reprehensibility.
The court also considers the defendant's financial condition when determining the amount, to ensure the penalty is meaningful.
Insurance companies are central to almost every personal injury claim in California. For the at-fault party, their insurance policy is the primary source of compensation.
However, it is critical for injured individuals to understand that an insurance company's interests are not aligned with their own. As for-profit businesses, their goal is to minimize the amount they pay out on claims.
This can lead to a variety of tactics, such as making a lowball settlement offer early in the process before the full extent of the injuries and long-term costs are known, or using recorded statements and social media to find reasons to deny or reduce a claim.
An experienced personal injury attorney understands these tactics and acts as a crucial advocate for the injured party.
They can handle all communication with the insurance company, conduct a thorough investigation to establish liability and damages, and negotiate for a fair settlement that covers all current and future losses, including pain and suffering. If a fair offer is not made, they can prepare the case for litigation.
The vast majority of personal injury cases in California settle before they ever reach a courtroom. However, for those that do, a jury of citizens will hear the evidence and decide the outcome.
The process begins with "voir dire," or jury selection, where attorneys question potential jurors to ensure a fair and impartial panel is chosen.
Once the jury is empaneled, the trial proceeds through a series of stages: opening statements, the presentation of evidence (witness testimony, expert opinions, medical records, and photos), cross-examination, and closing arguments.
The judge then provides the jury with "jury instructions," a set of legal guidelines they must follow to reach their verdict.
These instructions explain the burden of proof, the definition of negligence and comparative fault, and how to calculate damages. The jury then deliberates to decide two key issues: liability (was the defendant negligent and did that negligence cause the injury?) and damages (what is the amount of compensation the plaintiff should receive?). Their verdict, in most civil cases, must be reached by at least nine of the twelve jurors.
The legal concept of "duty of care" is the starting point for any negligence-based personal injury claim. It represents the obligation that one person has to another to act in a reasonable and prudent manner to avoid causing harm.
California Civil Code section 1714(a) codifies this general duty, stating that everyone is responsible for an injury caused by their "want of ordinary care or skill."
While the basic standard is what a "reasonable person" would do, the specific duty of care can be more complex and depends on the relationship between the parties and the circumstances of the incident. Examples of specific duties include:
A failure to meet this standard is considered a breach of duty.
Strict liability is a powerful legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to hold a defendant liable for their injuries without having to prove negligence.
In these cases, the focus is not on the defendant's actions or state of mind, but on the outcome. If the defendant engaged in a certain activity or manufactured a certain product that caused harm, they are held liable regardless of their intent or care.
In California, strict liability applies most commonly to two areas:
Strict liability also applies to other "abnormally dangerous" activities, such as blasting or the use of hazardous chemicals, though these cases are less common.
The California legal landscape is in constant motion, with new laws and court decisions shaping personal injury law. As of 2025, several key reforms have had a significant impact:
When a person is injured due to someone else's negligence, the law allows them to seek financial recovery for their losses, known as "damages." These damages are broadly categorized as follows:
In certain cases, Punitive Damages may also be awarded on top of these, as a punishment for the defendant's egregious conduct.
Q: What is the Statute of Limitations for personal injury claims in California?
A: In most cases, the statute of limitations for a personal injury claim in California is two years from the date of the injury. However, there are important exceptions, such as claims against a government entity, which have a much shorter deadline of six months.
Q: How does California's comparative fault system affect my compensation?
A: California operates under a "pure comparative negligence" system. This means that if you are found to be partially at fault for the accident, your total compensation will be reduced by your percentage of blame. For example, if you are awarded $100,000 but are found to be 25% at fault, you will receive $75,000.
Q: What are the key elements I need to prove in a negligence case?
A: To prove negligence in California, you must establish four key elements:
Q: What are punitive damages, and when are they awarded?
A: Punitive damages are a form of compensation designed to punish the defendant for malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive conduct. They are not intended to compensate the victim but to deter similar behavior in the future. They are rarely awarded and require a higher standard of proof than other damages.
Q: What role do insurance companies play in California personal injury claims?
A: Insurance companies are central to almost every personal injury claim. However, their primary goal is to minimize the amount they pay out. It is crucial to understand that their interests are not aligned with the injured party's. An experienced attorney can negotiate with the insurance company to ensure you receive a fair settlement.
Navigating the complexities of California personal injury law can be a daunting process, especially for those who have been injured due to someone else's negligence. As we move into 2025, it's more critical than ever to understand the fundamental legal principles that govern these cases.
Recent legislative reforms and evolving legal precedents have reshaped the landscape, offering new protections for victims while introducing nuanced challenges.
This comprehensive guide delves into the core tenets of California personal injury law, from the critical deadlines you must meet to the types of damages you can recover. For a related overview, you may also find this California personal injury law guide for 2025 helpful.
The statute of limitations is a cornerstone of personal injury law, serving as a strict legal deadline for filing a lawsuit. For most personal injury claims in California, you have two years from the date of the injury to file your case in civil court. However, this is not a one-size-fits-all rule, and failing to adhere to the correct deadline can result in the permanent dismissal of your claim.
It's crucial to be aware of the numerous exceptions that can either shorten or extend this timeframe. For instance, if your injury was caused by a government entity, such as a city, county, or state agency, the deadline to file a claim is often dramatically shorter—sometimes as little as six months. This is a critical distinction that can make or break a case.
On the other hand, the statute of limitations may be extended in certain situations, such as for minors, where the clock doesn't begin to run until the victim turns 18. Additionally, if the injury or its cause was not immediately apparent, the "discovery rule" may apply, allowing the two-year period to begin when the injury was, or should have been, discovered. Given these complexities, it's a mistake to wait; the sooner you consult with an attorney to understand your specific deadline, the better.
California operates under a "pure comparative negligence" system, a legal doctrine that can significantly impact the amount of compensation you receive. (For a deeper breakdown of how comparative fault works in practice, see this guide on California comparative fault in injury cases.)
Unlike other states that follow "modified comparative negligence" and may bar recovery if a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, California allows an injured party to recover damages even if they share a majority of the blame.
The system works by apportioning fault among all parties involved in an accident. If a jury determines that your total damages are $200,000, but you were 30% at fault for the accident, your final award would be reduced by 30% to $140,000. This principle is a core part of personal injury claims in the state, from car accidents to slip-and-fall incidents.
It’s a powerful tool that allows plaintiffs to pursue compensation even when they are not entirely blameless, but it also means that insurance adjusters and defense lawyers will work diligently to assign as much fault as possible to the plaintiff to reduce their payout. Understanding this principle is vital for both negotiating a settlement and preparing for a potential trial.
The vast majority of personal injury cases are founded on the legal concept of negligence. To successfully prove negligence in a California court, a plaintiff must establish four essential elements by a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it's more likely than not that the defendant is responsible.
For a detailed breakdown of these four elements—duty, breach, causation, and damages—see our full guide: Negligence Laws in California: What Injury Victims Must Prove
First, you must prove that the defendant owed you a duty of care. This is a legal obligation to act with a reasonable level of care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. Second, you must show that the defendant breached that duty. This means their actions (or inactions) fell below the standard of a "reasonably prudent person" under similar circumstances.
For example, a driver who texts while driving and causes a crash has breached their duty of care. Third, you must establish causation, proving that the defendant's breach of duty was a direct and proximate cause of your injuries. And finally, you must demonstrate that you suffered actual damages as a result, which includes quantifiable financial losses and non-economic harm.
In 2025, new legislation aimed at improving road safety has strengthened the legal framework for proving negligence in cases involving distracted driving, with stricter penalties and liability standards for offenders.
While most personal injury claims focus on compensating the victim for their losses, punitive damages serve a different purpose: to punish the defendant for their malicious or fraudulent conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. In California, these damages are not awarded for ordinary negligence.
The standard for winning punitive damages is much higher, requiring you to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
Because the burden of proof is so high and these damages are not covered by most insurance policies, punitive damages are only sought in the most egregious of cases. The amount awarded is also dependent on the defendant's financial condition, ensuring the punishment has a meaningful impact.
In virtually all personal injury cases, you will be dealing with an insurance company, not the at-fault party directly. It's crucial to understand that the insurance company's primary objective is to protect its bottom line by minimizing the payout on your claim.
The insurance adjuster is a professional negotiator whose job is to settle your case for the lowest possible amount.
Common tactics used by insurance companies include:
With the new laws in 2025 increasing minimum auto insurance coverage limits, insurance companies may become even more aggressive in their defense strategies. Having a skilled personal injury attorney is vital to counter these tactics and ensure you receive a fair settlement.
While most personal injury claims settle out of court, a significant number proceed to trial, where a jury will decide the outcome. The trial process in California is a structured series of events that culminates in a verdict.
A personal injury trial involves several key stages. After jury selection and opening statements, the plaintiff’s attorney presents evidence to prove the defendant's liability and the extent of the damages. This evidence can include police reports, medical records, photographs of the accident scene, and testimony from witnesses and expert medical professionals.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, who must persuade the jury that it is more likely than not that the defendant's negligence caused their injuries. The defense then presents its case, often attempting to discredit the plaintiff's evidence or shift a greater percentage of fault onto the plaintiff.
Finally, after closing arguments, the judge instructs the jury on the relevant laws, and the jury deliberates until it reaches a verdict. A favorable jury verdict can result in a much larger award than a pre-trial settlement, but the process is time-consuming and there is no guarantee of a successful outcome.
As discussed under negligence, the concept of "duty of care" is the bedrock of most personal injury claims. This legal obligation requires individuals and entities to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others.
The specific duty owed can vary depending on the relationship between the parties and the context of the situation.
The scope of a duty of care is a legal question that is often debated in personal injury cases. Your attorney will work to establish that the defendant had a clear duty to you and that their failure to uphold it was the direct cause of your injuries.
In a limited number of cases, a defendant can be held liable for an injury even if they were not negligent. This is known as strict liability, and it applies when public policy dictates that certain parties should be responsible for harm regardless of their fault.
The two most common applications of strict liability in California are:
Understanding whether strict liability applies is a crucial step in assessing your case, as it can significantly simplify the burden of proof required to secure compensation.
The year 2025 has brought about several significant legal reforms that are directly impacting personal injury cases. These changes are designed to improve victim protection and streamline the legal process.
Staying informed about these changes is essential for anyone pursuing a personal injury claim, as they can directly influence the value and trajectory of your case.
The primary goal of a personal injury lawsuit is to recover compensation for all losses you have incurred as a result of the accident. These "damages" are typically categorized into two types:
With the exception of medical malpractice cases, California does not place a cap on the amount of non-economic damages you can recover. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has a strong record of fighting for the rights of victims to receive full compensation for their losses.
As he has consistently stated, "Ensuring victims receive full and fair compensation for both their economic and non-economic losses is a cornerstone of justice in our state. We are committed to upholding the rights of individuals to recover damages that truly reflect the impact an injury has had on their lives."
This principle is a key part of his office's work, including in its recent lawsuit to protect over $1 billion in grants for crime victims. An experienced attorney can help you properly document and value both types of damages to ensure you receive a comprehensive settlement or award.
Q: How is comparative fault determined in California?
A: In California, if your personal injury case goes to trial, a jury is responsible for determining the percentage of fault for each party involved. The jury considers evidence such as police reports, witness testimony, photos, and expert analysis to decide how much each person's negligence contributed to the accident. Your final compensation is then reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to you.
Q: What is the average personal injury settlement in California?
A: There is no "average" personal injury settlement in California. Settlements vary dramatically depending on the specific circumstances of the case, including the severity of the injuries, the total amount of economic damages (medical bills, lost wages), the availability of insurance coverage, and the strength of the evidence. Minor claims might settle for a few thousand dollars, while catastrophic injury cases can result in multi-million dollar verdicts or settlements.
Q: Can I still get compensation if I was partially at fault for the accident in California?
A: Yes. California uses a "pure comparative negligence" system, which means you can still recover damages even if you were partially at fault for the accident. Your final compensation will be reduced by your percentage of blame. For example, if you were found to be 20% at fault, you would receive 80% of the total damages. This system allows for recovery even if you are more than 50% at fault, which is a key difference from many other states.
Q: How long does a personal injury case take in California?
A: The duration of a personal injury case in California can vary widely. Simple cases with clear liability and minor injuries might be resolved in a few months. More complex cases involving severe injuries, multiple at-fault parties, or a dispute over fault can take several years, especially if they proceed to a lawsuit and trial. The timeline depends heavily on factors like the time it takes for you to reach maximum medical recovery and the negotiation process with the insurance company.
Q: Is pain and suffering taxable in California?
A: Generally, compensation for physical injuries and sickness, including pain and suffering damages, is not considered taxable income by the IRS and the state of California. However, there are exceptions. If you previously deducted medical expenses related to your injury, or if the settlement includes a portion for lost wages, that portion may be taxable. It is always wise to consult with a qualified tax professional to understand your specific tax obligations.
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP has advised Neoma Private Equity Fund IV in successfully defending claims brought by Abdulhameed Dhia Jafar, following the collapse of the Abraaj Group in 2018.
Mr. Jafar alleged he was deceived by Abraaj founder Arif Naqvi into lending $350 million, citing false assurances about the firm’s financial health and governance. Claims of deceit and unjust enrichment were pursued under both Cayman Islands and UAE law.
After an eight-week trial, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands issued a 900-page judgment dismissing the case in full.
The Court found that Mr. Naqvi was not acting on behalf of Fund IV in his dealings with Mr. Jafar, defeating the attribution arguments and eliminating liability for the Fund.
Debevoise’s team was led by partner Christopher Boyne, supported by counsel Luke Duggan and associate Callum Murphy.
Neoma Private Equity Fund IV (formerly Abraaj Buyout Fund IV L.P.) is a 2008-vintage, Cayman Islands-exempted limited partnership focused on buyouts and co-managed originally by Abraaj Group and Actis. The fund is now overseen by Neoma Manager (Mauritius) Limited following the collapse of Abraaj Group, under an amended and restated limited partnership agreement. It has been the subject of high-profile litigation involving disputes over capital account balances and information rights under Cayman law, including successful defense against $350 million deceit and unjust enrichment claims in the Cayman Grand Court in 2025.
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP is a distinguished global law firm headquartered in New York, renowned for exceptional corporate, litigation, and financial services expertise. With more than 900 lawyers across nine offices on three continents, the firm advises clients in over 90 countries. Known for its client-focused approach, Debevoise combines deep industry knowledge, creativity, and commercial judgment to deliver solutions across private equity, funds and investment management, M&A, regulatory and white-collar matters, and complex cross-border disputes. The firm is widely recognized for its high-calibre work and commitment to excellence in lawyering.
Apollo, S3, TDR Capital’s acquisition of David Lloyd unveiled
Gainey McKenna & Egleston takes on Lantheus in Pylarify lawsuit
Jones Day expands with David DeVito joining its health-care practice
Georgia pastor indicted on child exploitation charges by HOPCC
Akin has advised Apollo’s Sponsor and Secondary Solutions (S3) business as a co-lead investor in TDR Capital Titan, a new continuation vehicle established by TDR Capital LLP.
The vehicle will acquire majority control of David Lloyd Leisure, Europe’s largest operator of racquets, health and fitness clubs, from TDR Capital III and its co-investors. Completion is expected in October 2025, subject to customary closing conditions.
The transaction brings together a group of leading investors, including the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (via TCI Fund Management), funds managed by Coller Capital, Apollo S3, CVC Secondary Partners, and Hollyport Capital.
More than £100 million in fresh capital has been set aside to accelerate David Lloyd’s growth plans, which include new club openings across the UK and Europe, expanded spa and wellness offerings, and additional padel facilities.
David Lloyd Leisure’s CEO Russell Barnes said the business is entering its next phase of growth following a record year for both membership and financial performance. "We are delighted to have TDR’s continued backing as we enter our next phase of growth. Coming off the back of our strongest year yet, both in terms of membership numbers and the performance of the business, we continue to see huge opportunities for David Lloyd across Europe and in the UK."
TDR Capital’s managing partner Tom Mitchell said: "David Lloyd has been a highly successful investment for TDR to date, achieving significant growth and operational transformation over the first period of our ownership. The transaction has allowed our current investors the option for a full exit, and we are very pleased to be continuing our work with Glenn, Russell and the wider David Lloyd team.”
Since TDR’s acquisition of David Lloyd in 2013, the company has nearly doubled its number of clubs, expanded into new European markets, grown membership to more than 800,000, and tripled its workforce to 11,600 employees.
Advisers to the transaction included Jefferies and Kirkland & Ellis LLP for TDR, Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc and Travers Smith for David Lloyd, and RBC Capital Markets and Akin for Apollo S3.
The Akin team was led by investment management partner Fadi Samman and included counsel Brendan McNamara, senior practice attorney Daniel Jacobs, corporate partner Timothy Clark, tax partner Stuart Alter, counsel Julie Geng, and associates Morgan Hensley, Zhane Austin, and Eva Luong.
Apollo Global Management is a leading global alternative asset manager, providing private equity, credit, and real asset solutions, with a focus on long-term value creation and flexible capital across markets.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is a leading global law firm with over 900 lawyers across offices in the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Founded in 1945, the firm is recognized for excellence in complex transactions, litigation, financial restructuring, and public policy. Akin is known for its innovative, diverse, and collaborative culture, serving corporations, governments, and individuals with tailored legal solutions.
