Distracted driving claims
Nearly every driver who caused a crash while looking at a phone says they were not looking at a phone. Fortunately, whether they were is a question that can be answered with records rather than argument.
What California actually prohibits
Note what the statute does not require: it is not limited to texting, and it does not require proof of a specific message. Holding the device and operating it is the violation.
Beyond the statute, distraction of any kind — eating, a satnav, children, a dog in the lap, an argument — is ordinary negligence if it caused the driver to fail to keep a proper lookout. The phone statute makes proof easier; it is not the only route.
How phone use gets proved
- Carrier records, obtained by subpoena once suit is filed, showing call and data activity timestamped against the moment of impact.
- The device itself, through a forensic examination in appropriate cases, which can show app activity and screen state rather than just network traffic.
- Vehicle infotainment data, which in many modern cars logs pairing, calls and messaging handled through the head unit.
- Scene admissions. People say things immediately after a crash that they later regret. What the driver said to the officer, to you, or to a bystander is evidence.
- The physical evidence of no reaction. An absence of skid marks or braking before impact is a classic signature of a driver who never saw what was in front of them.
Questions people ask
The driver denies using their phone. Can that be checked?
Yes. Carrier records can be subpoenaed once suit is filed and timestamp call and data activity against the moment of impact. Vehicle infotainment systems often log device activity too. A denial is a position, not the end of the inquiry.
They got a ticket for using a phone. Does that prove my case?
It helps considerably but is not automatic. You still have to show the distraction caused the collision and caused your injuries. In practice a citation, combined with physical evidence that the driver never braked, is a strong combination.
They were using a hands-free system. Is that still distraction?
It is lawful under Vehicle Code section 23123.5 for adult drivers, so there is no statutory violation. It can still be ordinary negligence if the driver was so absorbed that they failed to keep a proper lookout. Lawful conduct performed carelessly is still careless.
Related
Reviewed October 2026 by Simon Aziz Budhwani, Esq., the attorney responsible for this site. Legal statements here name the California code section they rely on, so you can check them rather than trust them. This is information about the law in general, not advice about your situation.
Find out where you stand.
Tell us what happened and we will tell you honestly whether you have a claim worth bringing, what it is likely to involve, and how long it tends to take. The review is free and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.