The Police Report Blamed You. That Is Not the End of Your Case.

Posted on: October 7th, 2026 by Pajman Jassim

California Accident Fault

How fault is really decided in car, motorcycle, e-bike, and pedestrian collisions; why the collision report is usually not admissible and often wrong; how we investigate what the officer did not; and why being partly at fault does not mean you have no case.  Learn more about California accident fault.

By Pajman Jassim and Parisima Jassim | Jassim Law | San Diego’s Trusted Injury Trial Lawyers

A good share of the people who call our office begin the conversation the same way: “The police report says it was my fault.” Or: “The report says they couldn’t determine who was at fault.” Or: “The other driver’s insurance company denied my claim because of the report.” Many of them have already been told by another law firm that there is nothing to be done.

We have built a significant part of our practice on cases that began exactly that way. Some of our largest results — for a motorcyclist the defense said was speeding, for the family of an e-bike rider the report said swerved into traffic, for a pedestrian the City said was crossing against the light — came in cases where the first official version of events pointed at our client. This article explains why that first version is so often wrong, what we do about it, and why even a client who bears some real share of the blame usually still has a case worth pursuing.

This article is general information about California law as of October 2026, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. If you have been seriously injured in a collision, talk to a lawyer about your specific situation — and do it before you talk to the other side’s insurance company.

Part One: What a Collision Report Actually Is — and Is Not

Parents, riders, and drivers tend to treat the traffic collision report as a final verdict. It is nothing of the kind. Understanding what an officer does at a crash scene explains why.

What the officer does

A patrol officer responding to a collision has a set of practical jobs: make the scene safe, get medical aid to the injured, determine criminal activity (i.e., drunk driving), clear the roadway, identify the parties and their insurance, and complete the form. The California Highway Patrol’s collision report (the CHP 555) and the local police equivalents are structured forms: boxes for the parties, a short narrative, a simple diagram, a line for the “primary collision factor,” and a list of witnesses with one- or two-sentence statements.

That work is done in an hour or two, often at night, often with injured people being transported before anyone speaks to them, and usually by an officer with no reconstruction training. In most cases, the officer typically does not measure skid marks with instruments, download the vehicles’ event data recorders, retrieve video, interview the witnesses in any depth, or return to the scene in daylight. The officer gathers basic information and the statements of whoever is available and willing to talk — and then moves on to the next call.

That is not a criticism. It is simply not the officer’s job to conduct a forensic investigation of a civil claim. Responding to vehicle collisions is just one of the many different duties police officers carry out on a daily basis.

The analysis is left to the attorneys, the insurers, and the experts who come after. The problem arises when everyone downstream treats the police collision report as if it were that analysis.

Why the report is so often wrong or incomplete

• The injured party was not interviewed. In serious crashes the rider or pedestrian is in an ambulance before the officer arrives. The only account in the report is the driver’s — the one person with every incentive to describe the crash favorably to himself.
• The physical evidence was not analyzed. Skid marks, gouge marks, debris fields, vehicle crush, Event Data Recorders (i.e., vehicle black boxes), final rest positions, and the timing of traffic signals are the raw material of reconstruction. Officers note some of it; they rarely analyze any of it.
• The witnesses were not vetted. A witness who “saw the whole thing” from 200 feet away through a windshield, or who arrived after the impact and is repeating what the driver told her, is recorded the same way as one who was standing at the corner. Officers rarely ask where the witness was, what they could see, or whether they are a friend of one of the parties.
• The officer’s assumptions fill the gaps. A motorcycle down means the rider was going too fast. An e-bike in the traffic lane means the rider swerved. A pedestrian in the road means the pedestrian stepped out. These are not findings — and in our cases they have been wrong again and again.
• Video was never retrieved. Intersection cameras, business cameras, doorbell cameras, bus cameras, and the drivers’ own dashcams are rarely pulled by patrol. They are frequently the single most important evidence in the case.

The Report is Usually Not Admissible in Court

Here is the point that surprises most people: in a California civil trial, the collision report itself generally cannot be shown to the jury. The narrative and the officer’s conclusions about fault are hearsay, and an officer who did not witness the crash is typically not permitted to offer an opinion about who caused it unless qualified and properly designated as a reconstruction expert.

Vehicle Code section 20013 provides that an accident report filed under the statute shall not be used as evidence in any trial arising out of the accident. The witness statements inside the report are hearsay within hearsay.

Vehicle Code § 20013; Evidence Code §§ 1200, 1280 (public-records exception does not extend to an officer’s fault conclusions or third-party statements).

What this means in practice: the document the insurance adjuster waved at you to deny your claim will, in most cases, never be seen by the people who actually decide fault — the jury.

What the jury sees is the evidence: the testimony of the parties and witnesses under oath, the physical evidence, the video, and the opinions of qualified experts. Insurers know this. They rely on the report at the claims stage precisely because most people do not.

Part Two: How We Overturn a Bad Report

Our approach to every serious collision case is the same whether the report is favorable, unfavorable, or inconclusive: we assume the official version is incomplete, and we build the case from the evidence rather than from the form.

Concretely, that means the following, and it means doing it immediately — because the evidence that overturns a bad report is the evidence that disappears first.

1. We file suit early. A lawsuit gives us the power of subpoena and the right to take depositions. Without it, we are asking politely for evidence that businesses, agencies, and the other driver have no obligation to provide. We would rather file in the first weeks and have the tools than negotiate for a year with one hand tied.
2. We subpoena the video — all of it. City traffic and streetlight cameras, transit cameras, business surveillance, residential doorbell cameras, and the other vehicle’s dashcam and telematics. In one pedestrian case we subpoenaed the City of San Diego’s own streetlight video, which showed a dangerous intersection the City had failed to fix; the City contributed to a $400,000 settlement on a $250,000 policy, and the driver paid above his limits personally. In another, a nearby market’s camera captured a father and child being struck in a crosswalk; the insurer tendered its $500,000 policy limits without further litigation.
3. We obtain the body-worn camera footage. Officers’ body cameras record what the parties and witnesses said at the scene — before anyone had talked to an insurance company or a lawyer – when memories are fresh, and people are more likely to be honest and clear about what happened. In one $8,250,000 motorcycle case, the defense claimed our client was speeding through a green light. The body-cam footage, together with early depositions of the witnesses and responding officers, showed otherwise. In another motorcycle case, body-cam and early depositions established that an on-duty security officer ran the red light.
4. We depose the officers and the witnesses — early. Under oath, with the scene photographs in front of them, witnesses tell a more precise story than the sentence an officer wrote down. We ask where they were standing, what they could actually see, how long they watched, and who they spoke to afterward. Officers are asked what they measured, what they did not, and what their “primary collision factor” was actually based on. Very often the answer is: the other driver’s statement.
5. We preserve and inspect the vehicles. Modern cars record speed, braking, throttle, and steering in the seconds before a crash. They record forces of impact. We can obtain traffic signal timing sequences, and with the use of traffic engineers and experts reconstruct how a collision occurred. We send preservation demands on day one and have the event data recorders downloaded by a qualified technician before the vehicle is repaired or scrapped.
6. We retain the right experts. Accident reconstructionists analyze the physical evidence and the video to establish speeds, positions, sight lines, and timing. Human-factors experts explain perception and reaction times — what a driver should have seen and when. Biomechanical engineers connect the mechanism of the crash to the injuries. Traffic engineers evaluate the roadway and signal timing. These are the people who turn a one-page form into a reconstruction the jury can rely on.
7. We go to the scene — repeatedly. In daylight and at the hour of the crash. We photograph sight lines from the driver’s seat and from the rider’s position, measure lane widths and crosswalk timing, and document obstructions, signage, and lighting that the report never mentioned. We use almanacs to determine the location of the sun and moon to recreate the lighting at the time of the crash.

Our e-bike wrongful-death case is the clearest example of the method. A landscape truck was parked in the bike lane; our client swerved around it into the traffic lane and was struck from behind. There were no witnesses, and the police report blamed him for the swerve. The insurer treated that report as the end of the matter. We treated it as the beginning: the truck’s position, the lane geometry, the driver’s sight lines, and the law prohibiting stopping in a bike lane told a different story, and the case resolved for $1,370,000.

Every case is different, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. These results reflect the specific facts, injuries, and insurance coverage in each matter.

Part Three: Shared Responsibility — Why Partial Fault Is Not No Case

The second thing injured people are told, by adjusters and sometimes by lawyers, is that because they did something wrong — rode without a helmet, crossed mid-block, were going a little over the limit — they have no claim. In California, that is simply not the law.

Pure Comparative Fault | California Accident Fault

California is a pure comparative negligence state. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. in 1975, fault in a collision is not all-or-nothing. The jury assigns a percentage of responsibility to every person who contributed to the crash the plaintiff, the defendant, and sometimes others who are not even in the courtroom — and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the plaintiff’s own percentage. A plaintiff who is 30 percent at fault recovers 70 percent of her damages. A plaintiff who is 60 percent at fault still recovers 40 percent. There is no cutoff at which a partially responsible plaintiff is barred entirely, as there is in many other states.

Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804; CACI No. 405 (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff); CACI No. 406 (Apportionment of Responsibility).

Think of it as shared responsibility rather than blame, and the percentages of fault are ultimately determined by a jury, not the court, not insurance companies, and frankly not your attorneys.

California Accident Fault

Most real collisions in real life involve more than one person making a mistake. The driver who turned left across a motorcycle’s path is at fault whether or not the rider was a few miles over the limit; the question is how the two mistakes compare. And on that question, the physical evidence and the expert analysis matter far more than the box the officer checked.

What This Means in Dollars | California Accident Fault

The arithmetic is why partial fault still matters enormously. In a catastrophic injury case — a brain injury, a spinal injury, a death — the damages can be measured in millions. A 25 percent reduction of a $4,000,000 case is a $3,000,000 recovery. An insurer that persuades a family to walk away because of a comparative-fault argument has saved itself the entire amount. That is the point of the argument, and it is why we do not accept it at face value.

The Exceptions Worth Knowing | California Accident Fault

• Helmets and seat belts. Failing to wear a helmet or a seat belt does not cause a crash; at most it may affect the extent of injury. California permits a defendant to argue that the failure increased the plaintiff’s injuries, but the defendant bears the burden of proving — through expert testimony — what injuries would have been avoided. That is a damages argument, not a bar to the case.
• Non-parties. Under Proposition 51 (Civil Code section 1431.2), a defendant can ask the jury to assign a share of fault to people who are not defendants. We anticipate this and make sure every responsible party — the driver, the employer, the owner of the obstructing truck, the public entity that designed the intersection — is in the case.
• The pedestrian’s duty, and the driver’s. A pedestrian outside a crosswalk must yield, but the Vehicle Code also requires every driver to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian on the roadway (Vehicle Code sections 21954, 21950). A pedestrian struck mid-block does not have “no case”; she has a comparative-fault case.
• Even a plaintiff who was impaired may recover if the defendant’s negligence also contributed to the crash.

Part Four: Ten Things to Do When the Report Is Against You

If you or a family member has been seriously injured and the collision report is unfavorable or inconclusive, these are the steps that preserve your ability to overturn it.

1. Do not accept the report as final, and do not repeat its conclusions to anyone. Especially not to an insurance adjuster. “I guess it was my fault” is a statement you will hear again used against you.
2. Get the full report, not just the face page. Request the complete report with all supplements, the diagram, the witness list, and the photographs. Note what is missing — no measurements, no video, no statement from you. In fact, often the police report is incomplete until the police department is served with a subpoena, and then the complete investigative file will be produced.
3. Write down your own account now, in detail, while it is fresh. Where you were, what you saw, how fast you were going, what the other vehicle did, what you heard. Do not share it with anyone but your lawyer.
4. Identify every potential source of video and ask for preservation in writing. Businesses, homes, the City, transit agencies. Most systems overwrite in days.
5. Find the witnesses the officer did not. People who stopped and left, the passenger in the other car, the clerk in the store on the corner. Note names, numbers, and where they were standing.
6. Preserve the vehicle, the bike, the helmet, and your clothing. Do not repair, sell, or allow the insurer to scrap anything until it has been inspected and the data downloaded.
7. Photograph the scene at the same time of day. Sight lines, signal timing, lighting, obstructions, and the condition of the roadway change. Capture it as it was.
8. Request the officer’s body-camera footage and the 911 recordings. These must be requested promptly; retention periods are short. Your lawyer can do this by subpoena once suit is filed.
9. Do not give a recorded statement to the other side’s insurer or your insurer. They have the report; they do not need your help. Refer them to your lawyer. You may be surprised, but even your insurance company can be your adversary if you are seeking compensation from your own uninsured/underinsured policy.
10. Talk to a lawyer who litigates disputed-liability cases — not one who settles from the report. Ask how many cases they have taken to deposition and trial where the report was against their client. The answer will tell you whether they will file suit and do the work, or send a demand letter and take what the adjuster offers.

Part Five: Why This Is the Work We Do | California Accident Fault

Most law firms can handle a rear-end collision with a favorable report and a clear policy. The cases that require a skilled trial lawyer are the ones where the report, the adjuster, and sometimes the first lawyer all said no.

This is where the real work is done, and what separates Jassim Law from the rest.  We understand the laws and California accident fault.  These cases are won by filing early, subpoenaing what others ask for politely, deposing the witnesses and officers before memories fade, retaining experts who can reconstruct what actually happened, and being prepared to try the case if the insurer will not pay what it is worth.

Learn More About California Accident Fault

Our firm is selective by design. We take fewer cases so that each one receives that work, and the two of us do it personally. Our core value is that justice is achieved “one client at a time.” That means your success is our success.

Our results in motorcycle, e-bike, and pedestrian cases — $8,250,000, $4,000,000, $2,250,000, $1,370,000, $500,000, $400,000, and $395,000 — were, nearly without exception, cases in which liability was disputed at the outset and resolved by the evidence we developed.

If you have been seriously injured and have been told the crash was your fault, we would like to see the report, and then we would like to see the evidence. The consultation is free, and there is no fee unless we recover for you.

Jassim Law is a San Diego personal injury trial firm focused on serious and catastrophic injury cases, including motor vehicle, motorcycle, e-bike, bicycle, and pedestrian collisions. Pajman Jassim and Parisima Jassim have been recognized by Super Lawyers and hold 10.0 Avvo ratings. This article is for general informational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Serving San Diego and Southern California.  Contact Jassim Law to learn more about California accident fault.