Child pedestrians and school zones

Start with the part that costs families the most. Parents are widely told that a child has until they turn 18 to bring a claim, so there is no hurry. Where a school district, city, or transit agency is involved, that is wrong, and the deadline is six months. This is general information, not legal advice.

The deadline trap, first

The general rule is real: for most injury claims the limitations period is tolled while the injured person is under 18. But the tolling statute says in terms that it does not apply to a claim for which a government claim must be presented.

A school district is a public entity. So is the city that maintains the road, the county, and the transit agency running the bus. If any of them may share responsibility — the crossing, the signage, the crossing guard programme, the bus stop siting, the driver — the six-month claim deadline runs from the injury, and a child gets no extra time for being a child.

What a minor does get instead is the late-claim route: an application to the entity for leave to present a late claim, which the board must grant where the claimant was a minor throughout the six-month period, and failing that a petition to the superior court. Those have their own deadlines and are a remedy for having missed one, not a substitute for meeting it.

Sources: Code Civ. Proc., § 352 (tolling for minority; subd. (b) excludes claims requiring a government claim); Gov. Code, § 911.2 (six months to present a claim); § 911.6 (the board must grant a late-claim application where the claimant was a minor throughout the period); § 946.6 (petition to the superior court).

Deadlines on a California injury claim · claims against a government entity.

The duty drivers owe children

California's instruction on this is two sentences long: an adult must anticipate the ordinary behaviour of children, and an adult must be more careful when dealing with children than with other adults.

That reframes the usual defence. A child running into the road after a ball, stepping out from between parked cars, or crossing without checking is ordinary behaviour for a child — which a driver is required to anticipate rather than be surprised by. The older authority behind the instruction puts it plainly: one dealing with children is bound to exercise a greater amount of caution than when dealing with an adult.

Sources: CACI No. 412 (duty of care owed children), Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2026 edition), citing Kataoka v. May Dept. Stores Co. (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 177, 182–183.

School zone speed

Where a school building or its grounds is contiguous to the highway and posted with a standard SCHOOL warning sign, the prima facie speed limit is 25 miles per hour while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet from the school grounds.

"Prima facie" is doing real work in that sentence, and it cuts both ways. A prima facie limit is not an absolute ceiling. Exceeding it does not automatically make the driving unlawful — it raises a rebuttable presumption that the speed was unsafe, which a driver can answer with evidence that the speed was in fact reasonable and prudent for the conditions.

The other direction matters more for a claim. Staying at or below 25 is not a defence. The basic speed law applies independently, so a driver doing 25 past a school gate at dismissal, with children on the footway, can still be driving at a speed that is not reasonable or prudent for those conditions. The sign sets a presumption; it does not license the speed.

Sources: Veh. Code, § 22352(b)(2) (prima facie limit of 25 miles per hour when approaching or passing a school building or grounds, contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard SCHOOL warning sign, while children are going to or leaving school during school hours or the noon recess period; such signs may be placed up to 500 feet from school grounds). Note the section carries a scheduled repeal date of January 1, 2031. Veh. Code, § 22350 (basic speed law — applies regardless of any posted or prima facie limit).

Comparative fault and a child's capacity

Expect the argument that the child ran out. A child is not held to an adult standard — the measure is the care reasonably expected of a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence — and very young children are generally regarded as incapable of negligence at all.

Combined with the heightened duty on the driver, that makes the usual defence considerably weaker in a child case than in an adult one. Where some share is assigned, it reduces rather than bars.

Comparative fault.

Crossing guards, buses, and who else may be responsible

• The school district, for crossing guard programmes, supervision, dismissal procedures, and site design.
• The city or county, for crossing markings, signals, signage, and sight lines.
• The bus operator, for loading and unloading and for the stop's location.
• An adjacent property owner, where landscaping or parking blocked the sight line.

All but the last are public entities on the six-month clock.

A settlement for a child needs court approval

Any settlement of a minor's claim requires court approval, and the funds are typically placed in a blocked account or a structured arrangement until the child turns 18. It is a protection rather than an obstacle, and it adds time that should be planned for rather than discovered late.

Common questions

Are drivers held to a higher standard around children?

Yes. The jury instruction is short and direct: an adult must anticipate the ordinary behaviour of children, and must be more careful when dealing with children than with other adults (CACI No. 412). Darting into a road is ordinary behaviour for a child, and a driver is expected to allow for it.

Can a child be found partly at fault?

A child is held to the care reasonably expected of a child of the same age, experience, and intelligence — not to an adult standard. Very young children are generally not capable of negligence at all. Expect the argument anyway, and expect it to be weaker than it sounds.

My child has until they turn 18 to sue, so there is no rush?

Dangerously wrong if a public entity is involved. Minority tolling does not apply at all to a claim that must go through the government-claims process, and a school district, city, or transit agency is a public entity. The six-month claim deadline runs from the injury as it would for an adult.

What is the speed limit in a school zone?

Where a school building or grounds is contiguous to the highway and posted with a standard SCHOOL warning sign, the prima facie limit is 25 miles per hour while children are going to or leaving school during school hours or the noon recess (Veh. Code, § 22352(b)(2)). The warning signs may be placed up to 500 feet from the grounds. "Prima facie" means it is a rebuttable presumption rather than an absolute ceiling — and staying under it is not a defence, because the basic speed law applies regardless.