Documenting a Bicycle Damage Demand After a Hit-and-Run Report

Attorney Answer

Yes — nobody is entitled to a number they will not document, and a demand is not proof of a loss. But the money is the smaller half of your problem. A hit-and-run allegation has been made against your husband, and he should not be negotiating the bike claim by text while that is open. Stop the texting first, then deal with the bike.

Here is why the order matters. Cal. Veh. Code § 20002(a) requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting only in damage to property, including vehicles, to stop immediately at the nearest location that will not impede traffic. Whether anything is ever charged is a prosecutor's decision, not the family's, and a report is an accusation rather than a finding. But every message your husband sends about the collision is a statement about his own conduct — including friendly ones, and especially any that sounds like paying to make something go away.

On the damages themselves, the measure is set by statute. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 provides that for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, the measure of damages is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused. That is a compensation rule, not a negotiation rule. It means the bicycle's actual loss — repair cost, or its value if it cannot be repaired — and the person claiming it has to be able to show that figure. A jump from $500 to $1,700 with no receipt, estimate or model number behind it is not a measure of anything.

Fault is the other half, and it is not settled by who filed the report. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) provides that "everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself." The closing clause is the point: if the cyclist rode into the side of a car, that is a want of ordinary care on the cyclist's part. In Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that this state uses pure comparative negligence, so a claimant's own share of fault reduces the recovery in proportion rather than wiping it out. Who had the right of way at that intersection turns on rules beyond the general duty described here, and a local lawyer should look at it.

One more thing you should know, because it changes how you think about closing this. The cyclist is a minor, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352(a) excludes the time of a person's minority from the period allowed to bring an action. A minor's claim can be brought long after an adult's would have expired, and under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 372(a)(1) a minor party appears through a guardian or a court-appointed guardian ad litem. A text-message agreement with a parent is not the same thing as a resolution of the child's claim.

What you can do

1. Stop the text negotiation now. Send nothing further about what happened or about money until a lawyer has read the thread.

2. Do not delete any of the messages, and do not write out a new account of the collision. Screenshot what already exists and keep it.

3. Have your husband speak with a criminal-defense lawyer in your county before he talks to any officer or investigator about the hit-and-run report.

4. Gather what already exists: photographs, any report number, and the insurance declarations page.

5. Ask a local lawyer whether to route the bicycle claim to your auto insurer, so that an adjuster asks for the documentation instead of the two of you arguing over a number.

6. Ask that lawyer how the minor's separate claim should be handled, since a private agreement with a parent may not close it.

Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.

⏱ Time limits apply. A claim for damage to property runs on Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1)'s three years, and a personal-injury claim on Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1's two years — but Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352(a) excludes the time of a claimant's minority, which can extend a child's claim well past those periods. Which dates apply here depends on your facts, and this is exactly the kind of question to put to a local attorney rather than settle by text.