My Teen Hurt Someone on an E-Bike. Are Parents Liable in California?

If your son or daughter hit a pedestrian, another cyclist or a car while riding an e-bike, you are not automatically responsible for the injuries just because you are the parent. California’s automatic parental liability for a teen’s crashes applies to motor vehicles, and Vehicle Code 24016(b) says an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle. A parent becomes liable in two situations: when the child’s conduct was willful rather than careless, which brings in a capped liability under Civil Code 1714.1, and when the parent’s own negligence contributed, most often by putting a child on a bike the child was not old enough or competent enough to ride.

In practice the question of who pays is usually answered by a homeowners or renters policy, whose personal liability coverage responds when a household member negligently injures someone. This post explains the sources of parental exposure, the limits on each, how the insurance usually works, and what applies if the roles are reversed and your child was the one hurt.

Why the automatic rule for teen drivers does not apply

When a parent signs a minor’s driver’s license application, Vehicle Code 17707 imposes the minor’s civil liability for driving a motor vehicle on the parent who signed. Vehicle Code 17708 does the same for a minor who drives a motor vehicle with a parent’s permission, licensed or not.

Both statutes are limited to a minor “driving a motor vehicle.” Vehicle Code 24016(b) provides that a person riding an electric bicycle is not subject to the code’s financial responsibility, license, registration or plate provisions, and that “an electric bicycle is not a motor vehicle.” Vehicle Code 21224(a) says the same about motorized scooters for financial responsibility purposes. There is no statute that shifts a child’s e-bike negligence to the parent by operation of law.

There is one caution. Vehicle Code 312.5 covers bikes with operable pedals and a motor of no more than 750 watts, and since January 1, 2025, subdivision (d) says a bike modified to exceed 20 miles per hour on motor power alone or to exceed 750 watts, or one with its pedals removed, is not an electric bicycle. A pedal-less electric dirt bike is a motorcycle under the Vehicle Code, which means an unlicensed 14-year-old riding one with a parent’s permission arguably falls within Vehicle Code 17708.

Civil Code 1714.1: willful misconduct, capped

Civil Code 1714.1(a) imputes a minor’s willful misconduct to the parent or guardian who has custody and control, and makes the parent jointly and severally liable with the child. The statute’s text carries a $25,000 figure, but the Judicial Council adjusts it for inflation every two years. For acts committed on or after July 1, 2025, the cap is $56,400 per tort. Under subdivision (d) the figure that applies is the one in effect when the child acted.

Two features of the statute limit it sharply in e-bike cases. First, it reaches only willful misconduct. A teenager who misjudges a turn, rides too fast for a crowded path or fails to see a pedestrian stepping off a curb is negligent, and negligence is not willful. The statute reaches conduct that is intentional or reckless in the sense of a deliberate disregard of an obvious danger, such as riding straight at a group of walkers to scatter them. Second, for personal injury the imputed liability covers only the injured person’s medical, dental and hospital expenses, up to the cap. Pain and suffering and lost wages are not imputed to the parent. The statute does not limit the child’s own liability, which is uncapped, or a claim against the parent for the parent’s own negligence.

The parent’s own negligence: supervision and entrustment

Absent a statute, a parent is not liable for a child’s torts simply by being the parent. Robertson v. Wentz (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1281 states the rule and the exception together: a parent may be liable where the parent’s own negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury and probable that the child would do so. The court applied the Restatement rule that a parent must use reasonable care to control a minor child when the parent knows of the ability to control the child and of the need and opportunity to do so. The claim is pleaded as ordinary negligence under Civil Code 1714(a).

With e-bikes the supporting facts tend to be specific.

• Buying or lending a Class 3 e-bike to a child under 16. Vehicle Code 21213(a) prohibits anyone under 16 from operating one, and since January 1, 2026, Vehicle Code 21212.5 prohibits selling a Class 3 to a person under 16. A parent who hands a 13-year-old a bike the law says the child cannot ride has a hard time calling that reasonable.
• Allowing a modified bike. Vehicle Code 24016(d) prohibits tampering with an e-bike to change its speed capability unless it still meets the legal definition, and Vehicle Code 24016(e) bans selling devices or apps that unlock speed. A parent who paid for the derestriction, or knew about it, is on notice.
• Knowing the child rides without a helmet, carries passengers or has crashed before, or ignoring warnings from a school or the police, and doing nothing about it.

The negligent entrustment framework comes from the motor vehicle cases. The jury instruction for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle, CACI 724, asks whether the person who supplied the vehicle knew or should have known the driver was unfit, permitted the use anyway, and whether that unfitness was a substantial factor in causing the harm. An e-bike claim is framed as general negligence with the same test. The strength of the claim rises with what the parent knew. A parent who bought a Class 1 bike for a careful 15-year-old who then had a first collision on a bike path has a good defense. A parent who bought a 12-year-old a 40-mile-per-hour machine and helped remove the limiter does not.

Exposure on that second set of facts is not only civil. In May 2026 the Orange County District Attorney created a unit to review e-bike and e-motorcycle cases and announced child endangerment charges against three parents and an involuntary manslaughter charge against an Aliso Viejo mother whose 14-year-old, riding an electric motorcycle the office says was illegal for him to ride, struck and killed an elderly pedestrian in Lake Forest.

Who pays: the homeowners or renters policy

Because an e-bike is not a motor vehicle, the family auto policy usually does not respond to a claim that a child hurt someone while riding one. The coverage that does is the personal liability section of a homeowners, renters or condo policy. That coverage generally applies to bodily injury caused by an insured, and household relatives, including minor children, are typically insureds under the policy. An umbrella policy, if the family has one, sits above it.

Three things to check on the policy. First, the motor vehicle exclusion. Homeowners policies generally exclude liability arising from the use of motor vehicles, and the policy’s own definition of that term decides whether a pedal-assist e-bike stays covered; many definitions turn on whether the vehicle is subject to registration. A modified bike or an electric motorcycle can fall on the wrong side of that line. Second, any exclusion for intentional acts, which tracks the willful misconduct line in Civil Code 1714.1. Subdivision (e) of that statute also says an insurer is not liable for more than $10,000 of the liability it imputes to a parent. Third, whether the liability limit is enough. A pedestrian with a hip fracture or a brain injury can present a claim that passes a modest limit, and the parent’s assets are exposed above it only if the parent is personally liable under 1714.1 or for their own negligence. Our pedestrian accident page describes what those claims involve.

Notify the homeowners insurer promptly in writing. Liability policies require timely notice, and the insurer takes over the defense of a covered claim. Give the basic facts, let the insurer handle contact with the injured party, and do not make promises about paying bills.

If there is no homeowners or renters policy, the claim is against the child personally, which usually means little can be collected until the child is an adult, and against the parent only on the theories above. Scooter buyers are warned about this directly: Vehicle Code 407.5(c) requires a printed notice that “your insurance policies may not provide coverage for accidents involving the use of this scooter.” The same caution applies to e-bikes.

The reverse situation: when your child is the one hurt

The same crash often produces a claim in the other direction. A teen struck by a car while riding an e-bike has a claim against the driver’s liability insurance, and the family’s own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, which Insurance Code 11580.2 requires every insurer to offer, typically covers resident relatives on a bicycle as well as in a car. Under Li v. Yellow Cab (1975) the child’s share of fault, if any, reduces the recovery but does not bar it, so a missing helmet or a Class 3 age violation is an argument about percentage rather than a defense to the whole claim.

Deadlines differ for a minor. Code of Civil Procedure 335.1 allows two years for an injury claim, and Code of Civil Procedure 352(a) pauses that clock until the child turns 18. The exception is a claim against a public entity for a road defect, which under Code of Civil Procedure 352(b) and Government Code 911.2 still requires a written claim within six months regardless of the child’s age; our post on the six-month government claim deadline explains it. Any settlement of a minor’s claim generally needs court approval. Our bicycle accident page covers the process, and our post on how much uninsured motorist coverage to carry explains the policy language.

A worked example

Suppose a 15-year-old in Porter Ranch rides a Class 2 e-bike on the sidewalk along Rinaldi Street and strikes a woman walking out of a shop, breaking her wrist. The rider was going about 15 miles per hour and glanced at his phone. That is negligence rather than willful misconduct, so Civil Code 1714.1 does not apply. The parents bought a legal Class 2 bike, there is no statewide age rule for that class, and nothing suggests the parents knew of prior reckless riding, so a negligent supervision claim is weak. The woman’s claim is against the teenager, and the family’s homeowners policy defends and pays it within its limits.

Change one fact: the bike had been derestricted to 35 miles per hour with a kit the father installed. The device is no longer an electric bicycle under Vehicle Code 312.5(d), the homeowners policy’s motor vehicle exclusion is now in play, and the father faces a negligent entrustment claim in his own name, with his assets exposed if coverage is denied. The distance between those two outcomes is why the bike itself is the first thing to look at.

Key points

• E-bikes are not motor vehicles under Vehicle Code 24016(b), so the automatic parental liability in Vehicle Code 17707 and 17708 does not apply to an e-bike crash.
• Civil Code 1714.1 makes parents liable for a child’s willful misconduct, capped at $56,400 per tort for acts on or after July 1, 2025, and for injuries only for medical, dental and hospital expenses.
• A parent can be liable for their own negligence, such as giving a child under 16 a Class 3 bike or allowing a modified one.
• The personal liability coverage on a homeowners or renters policy is usually the source of payment; check its motor vehicle exclusion.
• If the child was the one hurt, the two-year deadline is paused until age 18 except for claims against a public entity.

Frequently asked questions

Manoukian Law Firm represents injured people throughout California from its Chatsworth office. Call (818) 818-5031 or reach us through our contact page. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we recover for you.