CIV § 3333

Full Compensation for All Detriment Caused | CIV § 3333

Under California Civil Code § 3333, non-contract damages cover the amount compensating for all detriment proximately caused, whether anticipated or not.

Official text CIV § 3333 — California

For the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 3333 sets the measure of damages for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract: except where this Code expressly provides otherwise, it is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether it could have been anticipated or not. Every element of that sentence is doing something.

"All the detriment" is the widest word the Code uses for loss, and it is not limited to out-of-pocket expense. "Proximately caused" is the control: the loss has to be connected to the wrong closely enough in law, which is where most fights about a large claim are actually had. And "whether it could have been anticipated or not" is the deliberate contrast with contract damages, where § 3300 confines recovery to what was likely to result in the ordinary course of things or was contemplated by the parties. In tort you take your victim as you find them; in contract you do not. That difference is the practical reason a claimant with an unusually large loss often prefers to frame the claim in tort.

The opening qualification — "except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code" — matters more than it looks, because several sections do provide otherwise. Section 3343 substitutes an out-of-pocket measure for fraud in the purchase or sale of property. Section 3346 trebles damages for injury to trees. Section 3336 sets a presumed measure for conversion. Section 3340 adds exemplary damages for wrongful injury to animals. So this section is the default rather than the universal rule. Which measure applies to a particular claim, and what "all the detriment" comes to on the evidence, are the questions to put to a lawyer.

When it applies

  • Working out what can be claimed after a collision or an injury
  • A loss much larger than anyone could have predicted from the same accident
  • An insurer offering only the repair cost and nothing else
  • Consequential losses — lost earnings, a cancelled trip, a substitute vehicle
  • A property damage claim where the harm cascaded well beyond the first item
  • You are told your claim is limited to what was foreseeable

What this section does not say

  • It does not apply to breach of contract. Contract damages are governed by the sections beginning at § 3300, and the foreseeability limit there is exactly what this section removes.
  • It is not a licence to claim anything. "Proximately caused" is a real limit, and a loss too remotely connected to the wrong is not recoverable however genuine it is.
  • It is not the only measure. The opening words defer to any section of the Code that expressly provides otherwise, including §§ 3336, 3343 and 3346.
  • It says nothing about punitive damages. This section is compensatory; exemplary damages come from separate provisions with their own tests.
  • It does not create a claim. The wrong has to exist independently — under § 1714, § 1708 or a specific tort — before this section measures it.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

After a collision the other driver's insurer offers the repair bill and nothing else. The claimant could not work for two weeks and paid for a hire car in the meantime.

How the wording applies

Section 3333 gives all the detriment proximately caused, whether or not it could have been anticipated, which is wider than the contract measure. It turns on proximate cause and proof: lost earnings and hire charges flowing from the same collision are within it provided they can be evidenced, and an offer limited to the repair is a negotiating position rather than the measure.

How the parties settled it

The insurer pays the repair cost, the documented hire charges and an agreed figure for the two weeks of earnings, in full settlement of the property and earnings claim.

Illustrative example

A leak from a neighbouring unit ruins materials stored in a garage, which turn out to be worth many times what anyone would have guessed from the outside.

How the wording applies

The absence of a foreseeability limit is the point of the section: the wrongdoer takes the loss as they find it, so long as it was proximately caused. The fact this hinges on is causation rather than expectation, meaning whether the water reached the materials and whether they were already deteriorating for some other reason.

How the parties settled it

The neighbour's insurer pays the documented replacement cost of the materials damaged by water, and the parties agree a schedule for repairing the shared wall.

Illustrative example

A parked vehicle is hit and pushed into a fence, which falls onto a garden structure behind it.

How the wording applies

All the detriment proximately caused is recoverable, so the chain does not stop at the first item struck. It turns on whether each step follows from the impact: a fence knocked down by the vehicle is within it, while a structure that was already failing and would have come down anyway is not. The section measures the loss without creating the claim, which comes from section 1714.

How the parties settled it

The driver's insurer pays for the vehicle repair and the fence, and contributes an agreed proportion towards the garden structure reflecting its condition beforehand.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Martinez v. Robledo, 210 Cal. App. 4th 384 (2012)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What is the measure of damages for the wrongful injury of a pet under Civil Code section 3333?

What it held

A pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury.

In the court's words
We hold that a pet owner is not limited to the market value of the pet and may recover the reasonable and necessary costs incurred for the treatment and care of the pet attributable to the injury.

Olsen v. Reid, 164 Cal. App. 4th 200 (2008)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Does the collateral source rule or the Hanif/Nishihama rule allow a trial court to reduce a jury's award of medical expenses when the evidence of write-offs or payments is unclear?

What it held

The trial court erred in reducing the jury's verdict because the evidence was insufficient to determine what amounts were actually paid or written off, so the full jury award for medical expenses must be reinstated.

In the court's words
We therefore find the trial court erred in reducing the amount of the jury verdict.

Metz v. Soares, 142 Cal. App. 4th 1250 (2006)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Under Civil Code § 3333, is a plaintiff who does not use a car entitled to damages for loss of use?

What it held

A plaintiff who does not use a car is not entitled to damages for loss of use because he cannot show that the defendant's conduct proximately caused the detriment of lost use.

In the court's words
One who does not use a car is not entitled to damages for loss of use.

Strebel v. Brenlar Investments, Inc., 135 Cal. App. 4th 740 (2006)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What measure of damages applies under Civil Code § 3333 for a fiduciary's fraudulent concealment?

What it held

Under § 3333, there is no fixed rule for measuring tort damages; the court should adopt the measure that most appropriately compensates the injured party for the loss sustained, and lost appreciation damages may be included when necessary to fully compensate the plaintiff.

In the court's words
The measure that most appropriately compensates the injured party for the loss sustained should be adopted.

Fragale v. Faulkner, 110 Cal. App. 4th 229 (2003)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What is the measure of damages under Civil Code section 3333 for a fiduciary's intentional misrepresentation?

What it held

The measure of damages for a fiduciary's intentional misrepresentation under section 3333 is not limited to out-of-pocket losses; the broader benefit-of-the-bargain rule applies.

In the court's words
We agree with this approach, and conclude the measure of damages in a case of intentional misrepresentation by a fiduciary is not limited to out-of-pocket losses.

Santa Barbara Pistachio Ranch v. Chowchilla Water District, 88 Cal. App. 4th 439 (2001)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What is the proper measure of damages for tortious injury to productive trees under Civil Code section 3333?

What it held

The measure of damages under Civil Code section 3333 is flexible and should be the one that most appropriately compensates the injured party for the loss sustained; lost profits may be considered in determining restoration costs.

In the court's words
The measure that most appropriately compensates the injured party for the loss sustained should be adopted.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1714 Everyone responsible for negligence: CIV § 1714 CIV § 1708 No contract needed: CIV § 1708 duty to not injure CIV § 3343 CIV § 3343: Out-of-pocket difference + additional damages CIV § 3301 Lost profits must be clearly ascertainable - CIV § 3301

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 3333 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages