Are Children Held to the Same Fault Standard as Adults in Burbank, CA Pedestrian Accidents?

By Payam Soliemanzadeh, Founder and President

Key takeaways

• Child pedestrians are judged by same-age conduct standards, not adult standards, throughout Los Angeles County.
• Cases involving Victory Boulevard or San Fernando Boulevard collisions file at Burbank Courthouse, 300 East Olive Avenue.
• Injured children may have until their 20th birthday to file under tolling provisions in CCP §335.1.
• Huntington Hospital treats severe pediatric injuries from Golden State Freeway and Ventura Freeway corridor crashes.

Burbank's dense network of commercial corridors and residential streets creates constant conflict between vehicles and pedestrian traffic. When children cross Victory Boulevard near schools or dart into traffic along San Fernando Boulevard, determining fault requires understanding how California law evaluates a child's conduct differently from an adult's. These differences profoundly affect liability and recovery in Burbank pedestrian accident claims.

The distinction matters because California applies pure comparative negligence, reducing recovery by the plaintiff's fault percentage. When a driver strikes a child, the lower fault threshold applied to minors often means the child bears less comparative fault than an identically behaving adult would. This directly increases the family's recovery and changes settlement negotiations.

The reasonably careful child standard

California case law establishes that children must exercise only the degree of care that a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, and experience would use under similar circumstances. Unlike the adult standard requiring prudent-person conduct, this child-specific test acknowledges developmental limitations. A five-year-old crossing Olive Avenue lacks the impulse control and hazard perception of a teenager, so the law judges each accordingly. Courts instruct juries to consider what children of that particular age typically understand and how they typically behave.

The standard applies regardless of whether the child violated Vehicle Code §21950 by crossing outside a marked crosswalk or Vehicle Code §21954 by failing to yield when jaywalking. While adult pedestrians who jaywalk may be assigned significant comparative fault, child pedestrians receive greater latitude. The inquiry focuses not on whether the child broke a traffic rule, but whether a child of similar age and development would have made the same choice given limited experience judging vehicle speed and distance.

How age affects comparative negligence allocation

Pure comparative negligence allows recovery even when the plaintiff is mostly at fault, but the percentage assigned directly reduces damages. A driver who strikes a seven-year-old running into traffic on San Fernando Boulevard after a soccer ball may argue the child was 60 percent at fault. Under the child standard, however, a jury may find that most children that age would chase a ball without checking traffic, reducing the child's fault to 20 percent and preserving 80 percent of the damages. The gap between adult and child standards often shifts tens of thousands of dollars in settlement value.

Insurance adjusters routinely apply adult-level fault to child claimants during initial offers, citing jaywalking or distracted behavior. Effective advocacy requires presenting developmental psychology evidence and jury instruction patterns that compel application of the correct standard. Because children struck on corridors near Interstate 5 or State Route 134 interchanges often suffer catastrophic injuries requiring treatment at Huntington Hospital, the comparative fault percentage determines whether a family recovers enough to cover long-term medical costs and future wage loss once the child reaches working age.

Statute of limitations tolling for minor plaintiffs

CCP §335.1 generally requires pedestrian injury claims to be filed within two years. Government claims under Gov. Code §911.2 must be filed within six months if a city vehicle or poorly maintained Burbank crosswalk contributed. For minors, however, the statute tolls—meaning it does not begin running—until the child's 18th birthday. A child injured at age eight has until age 20 to file suit, preserving claims long after adult plaintiffs would be time-barred.

Tolling allows families to defer litigation until injuries stabilize and long-term prognosis becomes clear, but it requires careful claim preservation. The six-month government claim deadline does not toll; a parent or guardian must file it promptly even if the lawsuit can wait. In Burbank collisions involving municipal buses or defective signals along Olive Avenue or Victory Boulevard, missing that initial six-month window forfeits the entire claim regardless of later tolling. Coordination of both deadlines is essential whenever a public entity bears potential liability.

Local details

Pedestrian injury claims arising in Burbank are filed in Los Angeles Superior Court's North Central District at the Burbank Courthouse, located at 300 East Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502. The courthouse handles all motion practice, settlement conferences, and trials for collisions occurring within Burbank city limits. Children struck on high-traffic corridors such as Victory Boulevard, San Fernando Boulevard, or interchanges serving the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5), Ventura Freeway (State Route 134), or Hollywood Freeway (State Route 170) are often transported to Huntington Hospital at 100 West California Boulevard in Pasadena, a Level II trauma center equipped for severe pediatric injuries. Medical records from Huntington Hospital form critical evidence in proving damages, especially when a child's comparative fault is contested and every percentage point affects recovery under California's pure comparative negligence rule.

Frequently Asked Questions

At what age is a child judged by the adult fault standard in California?

There is no bright-line age. Courts apply the child standard case-by-case based on maturity and experience. By mid-to-late teens, juries may find a minor's judgment approaches adult capacity, but the child standard technically applies until age 18. Each case turns on evidence of the specific child's development and the complexity of the conduct in question.

Can a driver be found 100 percent at fault when hitting a child who jaywalked?

Yes. Even if the child crossed mid-block on Victory Boulevard, the driver owes a duty of due care and must account for children's unpredictable behavior. If the driver was speeding, distracted, or failed to keep a proper lookout, a jury may assign full liability to the driver despite the child's violation of Vehicle Code §21954, particularly when the child standard reduces or eliminates comparative fault.

Who files the lawsuit on behalf of an injured child in Burbank?

A parent or court-appointed guardian ad litem files at Burbank Courthouse on the child's behalf. Any settlement exceeding $5,000 requires court approval to protect the minor's interests. The settlement funds are typically placed in a blocked account until the child reaches 18, ensuring the money remains available for ongoing medical care and future needs once majority is reached.

Does the child standard apply to teenage drivers in pedestrian cases?

No. California holds all drivers—regardless of age—to the adult standard of care because operating a vehicle is an adult activity. A 16-year-old driver who strikes a child on Olive Avenue is judged as a reasonably prudent adult driver would be. The lenient child standard applies only to children acting as pedestrians, bicyclists, or in other non-driving roles.

Related reading

• Our pedestrian accident practice page
• Our Burbank pedestrian accident page
• Right of Way in Sherman Oaks Crosswalks: When Is the Driver Liable?
• Common Causes of Pedestrian Accidents in Los Angeles

Attorney advertising. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.