Child Hit by a Car in a California School Zone

Your child was crossing near school and a driver hit them. You are home from the emergency room with discharge paperwork and a report number, and an adjuster has already called asking what happened.

A child's claim runs on different rules than yours would. This post covers what decides fault in a California school zone, why a minor's deadlines are not the deadlines you know, and why a settlement for a child is not final when you sign it.

The posted number is only half the question

Two rules govern speed in California, and adjusters like to talk about only one of them.

Vehicle Code § 22350, the basic speed law, says no person shall drive faster than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed that endangers persons or property. That applies everywhere, regardless of the sign.

The school zone number is a prima facie limit, which is a different thing. Under § 22351, exceeding it is prima facie unlawful unless the driver establishes by competent evidence that the speed did not violate the basic speed law. The flip side matters more to you: being under the posted number does not make a speed safe. Twenty-five through a dismissal crowd can still violate § 22350.

That 25 has generally been the limit when approaching or passing a school building or grounds contiguous to a highway and posted with a standard school warning sign. AB 382, chaptered in October 2025, added Vehicle Code § 22352.5, letting a local authority declare a 20 mile per hour prima facie limit in a school zone by ordinance or resolution. From January 1, 2031, 20 becomes the statewide default when the posted conditions are met: flashing beacons under a "speed limit 20 when flashing" sign, a "children are present" sign while children are present, or a sign with specific hours. A school zone is an area within 500 feet of school grounds in any direction unless otherwise posted.

So the limit where your child was hit depends on what your city adopted and what is on the pole. Photograph the signs, and note whether the beacons were flashing, before anything is replaced.

Crosswalks and the school bus rule

Section 21950(a) requires a driver to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing within any marked crosswalk, or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. No paint does not mean no crosswalk. Subdivision (c) goes further: a driver approaching a pedestrian in any crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce speed or take any other action necessary to safeguard that pedestrian.

The adjuster will read you subdivision (b): a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb and walk or run into the path of a vehicle so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. Subdivision (d) answers it. That does not relieve the driver of due care toward any pedestrian in a crosswalk.

If a school bus was involved, § 22454(a) requires a driver meeting or overtaking it from either direction, while it is stopped to load or unload schoolchildren and displaying a flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, to stop immediately before passing. Subdivision (b) carves out divided highways and roads with two or more lanes each way when the bus is on the opposite roadway.

Expect the adjuster to blame your child

They will, early, before anyone has measured a sight line.

California does not hold a child to an adult standard. The jury instruction on the standard of care for minors, CACI No. 402, tells jurors that a child is required to use the amount of care that a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would use in that same situation. That is a test tied to your specific child, not to an average one.

Below a certain age the question drops out. In Christian v. Goodwin, a 1961 California Court of Appeal decision involving a plaintiff four years and seven months old, the court held that a child that age lacks the capacity to be contributorily negligent as a matter of law. Where the question is live, pure comparative negligence applies: a share of fault reduces a recovery, it does not erase it.

The practical risk is not the law, it is the phone call. What the adjuster wants is you on tape describing a crash you did not witness. Guessing at how fast your child was walking creates a quote that outlives your memory of it. Our post on recorded statement traps covers what those calls are built to produce.

What this means in California: the deadlines are not the ones you know

This is where claims for children go wrong most often, in both directions.

• The two-year clock usually waits. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 gives two years for a personal injury action. Section 352(a) provides that if the person entitled to bring the action was under the age of majority when the cause of action accrued, the time of that disability is not part of the time limited. In practice the two years generally does not start until your child turns 18.
• That does not apply against a public entity. Section 352(b) expressly excludes actions against a public entity or public employee where a Government Code claim is required. School districts, cities, counties, and transit agencies are public entities.
• Six months for the government claim. Government Code § 911.2 requires a claim for injury to person to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues. Our post on the six-month government claim deadline walks through how that works.
• Minority is a late-claim ground, with an outer limit. Section 911.4 allows a written application for leave to present a late claim, made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after accrual. Section 911.6(b) says the board shall grant it if the injured person was a minor during all of the six-month period. A real safety net, but it runs against that one-year ceiling, and it requires an application nobody files by accident.

Waiting until 18 is legal in a private-defendant case. It is still a bad idea. Video overwrites, crossing guards change jobs, signs get replaced, and the driver's memory improves in their own favor.

A settlement for a child is not final when you sign it

You cannot simply take a check for your child. A judge has to look at the deal.

If a lawsuit is on file, Code of Civil Procedure § 372(a) lets the guardian ad litem compromise the claim only with approval of the court where the action is pending. Without a lawsuit, Probate Code § 3500 lets a parent compromise a minor's disputed claim, either parent if the parents are not living separate and apart, or the parent with care, custody, or control if they are, but only after the superior court approves it on a petition. Where the court orders proceeds deposited into an insured account or annuity, the release does not take effect until the funds are deposited as directed.

That changes the math on an early offer, which has to survive a judge asked whether it serves the child's interest. Children's claims also carry components adults' often do not: future care, scarring, and time out of school. How those get valued is covered in our post on how pain and suffering is calculated.

Practical next steps

• Request the collision report from the agency that responded.
• Return to the scene at the same time of day and photograph the signs, beacons, crosswalk paint, and sight lines.
• Write down every adult who saw it: crossing guard, teacher, bus driver, parents in the pickup line, and ask the district in writing whether a camera covers the crossing. Ask now, because recordings overwrite.
• If a school bus, a district or city vehicle, a crossing guard program, or the condition of a public street or sidewalk is involved, calendar the six-month date today.

Keep the appointments, because a gap in a child's treatment record is the first thing an adjuster points to later. Write down what your child told you the day it happened, in their words, and date it. If you want someone to sort out which deadline applies here, a consultation with our firm is free and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.