CIV § 1714.1

Parents Liable for Minor's Misconduct: CIV § 1714.1

CIV § 1714.1 limits parental liability for a minor's willful misconduct to $25,000 per tort, limited to medical, dental, and hospital expenses for injury.

Official text CIV § 1714.1 — California

(a) Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person or in any injury to the property of another shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (c), the joint and several liability of the parent or guardian having custody and control of a minor under this subdivision shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for each tort of the minor, and in the case of injury to a person, imputed liability shall be further limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred by the injured person, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The liability imposed by this section is in addition to any liability now imposed by law.

(b) Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in the defacement of property of another with paint or a similar substance shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, including court costs, and attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party, and the parent or guardian having custody and control shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct, not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), except as provided in subdivision (c), for each tort of the minor.

(c) The amounts listed in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall be adjusted every two years by the Judicial Council to reflect any increases in the cost of living in California, as indicated by the annual average of the California Consumer Price Index. The Judicial Council shall round this adjusted amount up or down to the nearest hundred dollars. On or before July 1 of each odd-numbered year, the Judicial Council shall compute and publish the amounts listed in subdivisions (a) and (b), as adjusted according to this subdivision.

(d) The maximum liability imposed by this section is the maximum liability authorized under this section at the time that the act of willful misconduct by a minor was committed.

(e) Nothing in this section shall impose liability on an insurer for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured for purposes of Section 533 of the Insurance Code. An insurer shall not be liable for the conduct imputed to a parent or guardian by this section for any amount in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1714.1 is the answer to "do I have to pay for what my child broke", and the answer it gives is narrower than people fear and wider than they expect. Subdivision (a) imputes any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person, or in injury to another's property, to the parent or guardian having custody and control, for all purposes of civil damages. That parent or guardian is jointly and severally liable with the minor. The key word is willful: carelessness by a child is not imputed by this section, and the liability it creates does not depend on the parent having done anything wrong.

The liability is capped. Subdivision (a) sets the joint and several liability at $25,000 for each tort of the minor, and where the claim is for injury to a person it is further limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred, within that same ceiling. Subdivision (b) applies the same structure to defacement of property with paint or a similar substance, and adds court costs and attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Subdivision (c) requires the Judicial Council to adjust both figures every two years for the California Consumer Price Index, rounding to the nearest hundred dollars and publishing the result on or before 1 July of each odd-numbered year — so the operative number is the published one, not the $25,000 printed in the text. Subdivision (d) fixes the maximum at what it was when the act was committed.

Subdivision (a) also says the liability imposed is in addition to any liability now imposed by law, which is the point most often missed: a parent who was themselves negligent — in supervision, or in letting a child use something dangerous — can be liable on ordinary principles under § 1714 without any cap at all. Subdivision (e) limits an insurer's exposure for the imputed liability to $10,000. Which route a particular claim runs on is worth checking with a lawyer.

When it applies

A teenager keys or spray-paints a car in the street
A child deliberately breaks a neighbour's window
Vandalism at a school or a shop attributed to your child
A fight at school where one child deliberately injured another
A parent asked to pay far more than the statutory ceiling
An insurer saying its exposure for the child's act is limited

What this section does not say

It does not cover a child's carelessness. Only willful misconduct is imputed; an accident caused by a child is not within this section.
The printed $25,000 is not the current figure. Subdivision (c) requires the Judicial Council to adjust and publish the amounts every two years for inflation.
It does not cap a parent's own negligence. Subdivision (a) says the liability is in addition to liability already imposed by law, and a claim that the parent failed to supervise is uncapped by this section.
For personal injury it is not general damages. Where the claim is injury to a person, the imputed liability is limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred.
It does not decide who has custody and control. The section attaches to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor, which can be contested where parents are separated.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A neighbour's greenhouse is smashed by a teenager throwing stones at it on a dare. The neighbour asks the parent for the full replacement cost of a bespoke structure.

How the wording applies

Section 1714.1 imputes a minor's willful misconduct to the parent having custody and control, up to a ceiling the Judicial Council adjusts for inflation, so the figure printed in the section is not the current one. What this turns on is willfulness: stones thrown at the glass on purpose is willful misconduct, while a ball hit into it during a game is not, and would only reach the parent through their own negligence.

How the parties settled it

The parent pays for a like-for-like replacement in two instalments and the teenager clears the glass and helps with the rebuild, with nothing further claimed.

Illustrative example

Two pupils fight at school and one is deliberately pushed into a door frame, needing stitches and a dental repair. The injured child's family asks the other family to pay.

How the wording applies

Where the claim is injury to a person rather than to property, the imputed liability is limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses actually incurred, not general damages for the injury. It also turns on custody and control, which can be genuinely contested where parents are separated and the child lives mainly with one of them.

How the parties settled it

The family pays the dental and medical bills on production of the invoices, and both families agree the matter is closed and will not be raised again with the school.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (1996)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the Bezeneks are liable under Civil Code section 1714.1 for the willful misconduct of their minor children, including when their children acted in concert with friends.

What it held

The court held that the Bezeneks are liable under Civil Code section 1714.1 because their son's conduct was intentional and willful, and it is of no consequence that the friends participated or that the complaint did not plead conspiracy.

In the court's words

Thus, the trial court correctly determined his conduct to be intentional and willful.

Jamshid-Negad v. Kessler, 15 Cal. App. 4th 1704 (1993)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether Civil Code section 1714.1 constitutes a 'special regulation' that justifies the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over nonresident parents who send their minor child to California for education.

What it held

The court held that Civil Code section 1714.1 is a special regulation because its purpose is to protect California citizens from the willful misconduct of minors by specifically regulating parental supervision, and therefore nonresident parents who send their child to a California public institution are subject to specific personal jurisdiction.

In the court's words

In effect, section 1714.1 is comparable to the statute penalizing obscene phone calls in Schlussel v. Schlussel, supra, 141 Cal.App.3d at pages 196-198, and the statute subjecting foreign corporations to suit in California on insurance contracts with residents in McGee v. International Life Ins. Co. (1957) 355 U.S. 220, 221-223 [2 L.Ed.2d 223, 224-226, 78 S.Ct. 199].

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

Someone's child damaged my property: what the law says in six jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

CIV § 1714 Everyone responsible for negligence: CIV § 1714 CIV § 1708 No contract needed: CIV § 1708 duty to not injure CIV § 3333 Full Compensation for All Detriment Caused | CIV § 3333

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1714.1 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages