Yes. If you were sexually abused through a school, church, youth program, foster placement or other organization in California, the law generally allows a civil claim against the institution itself, not only against the person who committed the abuse. These claims usually rest on negligence: the institution owed a duty to protect you and failed to meet it. The deadline depends on your age and when the abuse happened.
Many survivors wonder whether an organization that was supposed to keep them safe can be held responsible, sometimes years after the abuse. The sections below explain how California law approaches that question: who can be held liable, which deadlines apply, and what a civil claim can and cannot do.
Yes: California Law Allows Survivors to Sue Institutions, Not Just Individual Abusers
Schools, churches, employers, youth organizations and foster care agencies can all be held civilly liable for sexual abuse that happened while a person was in their care. The institution often carries separate responsibility from the person who committed the abuse.
A civil claim stands apart from any criminal case. The difference is covered in our guide to civil and criminal abuse cases.
Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 covers childhood sexual assault. Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 covers sexual assault of adults. Section 340.1 covers an action "against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault."
What "Institutional Liability" Means Under California Law
Negligence has four parts. The institution owed a duty of care. It breached that duty. The breach was a cause of the abuse. And the survivor was harmed.
Negligent supervision means the institution did not adequately watch over employees, volunteers or others with access to the people in its care.
Negligent hiring and negligent retention mean the institution hired someone, or kept them on, despite warning signs it knew about or could have found with reasonable checking.
Respondeat superior holds an employer responsible for an employee's acts within the scope of employment. Courts apply it differently in abuse cases than in ordinary negligence claims.
Our overview of institutional sexual abuse claims covers common settings in more detail.
When the institution is public, Government Code section 815.2 provides that "a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment" where the employee would otherwise be liable. It also contains exceptions, including where the employee is immune.
California's Statutes of Limitations for Institutional Abuse Claims
Abuse of a child (section 340.1). For abuse on or after January 1, 2024, the statute now says there is "no time limit" for these actions. For abuse on or before December 31, 2023, the claim is governed by the law as it read on that date. Under that law, a survivor generally has until age 40, or five years from discovering that a psychological injury was caused by the abuse, whichever is later.
Abuse of an adult (section 340.16). For a sexual assault on or after the survivor's 18th birthday, the deadline is the later of 10 years from the last act of assault, or three years from when the survivor discovered or reasonably should have discovered the resulting injury or illness.
Section 340.16 also contains a revival window. It applies to adult assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, where the claim would otherwise be barred only because the deadline had passed. Those claims "may be commenced until December 31, 2026." The window excludes a claim litigated to finality before January 1, 2023, and a claim settled by written agreement before January 1, 2023.
The discovery rule means the clock may start when the survivor connects an injury to the abuse, not on the date the abuse happened.
Public entities and claim presentation. The Government Claims Act ordinarily requires a written claim to be presented to a government body before suing it. Government Code section 905, which governs local public entities such as school districts, exempts "claims made pursuant to Section 340.1." A local entity also cannot substitute its own claim procedure.
Claims against the State of California follow a different section, which has no 340.1 exemption. For a state defendant, the exemption in section 340.1 itself reaches conduct on or after January 1, 2024.
The result turns on the facts of each case. More detail appears in our guide to the California statute of limitations.
What Evidence Supports an Institutional Abuse Claim
In institutional cases, much of the important evidence sits with the institution: personnel files, earlier complaints, incident reports, hiring and background-check records and internal emails.
An attorney evaluating a claim typically looks at:
- Records made at the time, such as medical, school or therapy records
- Letters, emails or messages
- Accounts from people who raised concerns, or who experienced similar conduct
- The institution's own policies, and whether they were followed
Civil discovery allows an attorney to require an institution to produce records a survivor could never get alone. Institutional cases often turn on what the institution knew, and when.