Driver Liability When a Child on a Scooter Hits a Car

Attorney Answer

Probably not — but that turns on how you were driving, not on the fact that your car never struck the child. You braked in time and the child was not hit. On those facts a claim against you is a weak one. It is not automatically no claim, because California measures a driver by the care a reasonable person would use in that place, and a school zone is a place where children are expected.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1714(a) is the starting point: "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." That one sentence carries both halves of your situation. It is what would make you responsible if you drove carelessly, and its closing clause is what cuts down a claim by someone whose own carelessness brought the harm on themselves.

If the child was crossing in a marked crosswalk, or in an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, Cal. Veh. Code § 21950 adds detail. Subdivision (a) requires a driver to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing in such a crosswalk, and subdivision (c) requires a driver approaching a pedestrian in a crosswalk to exercise all due care and to reduce speed. Subdivision (b) runs the other way: a pedestrian must use due care, and no pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Subdivision (d) keeps the driver's duty alive even so. Whether that section reaches a child riding a scooter rather than walking is a question for a local lawyer.

California is a pure comparative fault state. If some share of fault were assigned to you, it would reduce what an injured person recovers in proportion to that share rather than eliminating the claim — and a person mostly at fault is never barred outright. The Supreme Court applied and reaffirmed that system in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978).

Damages matter here too. Cal. Civ. Code § 3333 measures tort damages as the amount that will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused, whether or not it could have been anticipated. Where no one was hurt, there is very little detriment to compensate. The same section works the other way if the scooter damaged your car.

What you can do

1. Preserve what already exists rather than creating anything new: dashcam video, photographs of your car, any incident or police report number, and any contact details you were given.

2. Tell your own auto insurer about the contact promptly, even though no one appears to have been hurt. Most policies require prompt notice, and a late report causes its own problems.

3. If a parent, a lawyer or an insurer contacts you, hand it to your insurer and let them respond rather than discussing the incident yourself.

4. Ask a local lawyer about two things: whether the crosswalk rules in Cal. Veh. Code § 21950 reach a child on a scooter, and what deadline applies to a claim brought on behalf of a child.

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. An injury claim in California runs on the two years given by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1, and a claim for damage to a vehicle on the three years given by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(c)(1). A child's clock is different: under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352(a), time spent under the age of majority is not counted against the deadline, so a claim can stay open well after an adult's would have closed. When each period starts depends on your facts, so have a local attorney check the dates rather than assuming the matter is behind you.