John Roach, Esq. | October 13, 2026 | California Law
If a Child Is Injured by a Dangerous Condition of Public Property, Does California’s 6-Month Claim Deadline Get Extended?
Parents often assume that if a child is hurt, California pauses the clock until the child turns 18. That is true for many private-defendant injury cases. It is not true for the government claim that must be filed before you can sue a city, county, school district, transit agency, or the State.
If your child was injured by a dangerous condition of public property — a broken San Francisco sidewalk, a school-playground hazard, a MUNI or BART platform defect, a pothole, a missing guardrail, or an unsafe condition on a Caltrans roadway — the six-month administrative claim under Government Code § 911.2 still applies. Minority does not automatically extend that deadline.
The claim that matters is not the lawsuit
Under Government Code § 835, a public entity can be liable when a dangerous condition of its property causes injury. “Dangerous condition” is defined in § 830(a): a condition that creates a substantial — not trivial — risk of injury when the property is used with due care in a reasonably foreseeable way.
That is the liability statute. The procedure statute is different. Before you can file a lawsuit for money damages against a public entity, Government Code § 945.4 requires that a written claim first be presented to the entity. For personal injury, § 911.2(a) requires that claim to be presented not later than six months after the cause of action accrues — usually the date of the injury.
Miss the claim, and the lawsuit is typically barred, no matter how clear the hazard or how serious the child’s injuries. The two-year personal-injury statute in Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 does not save a missed government claim.
Minority tolling does not pause the six-month clock
Code of Civil Procedure § 352 generally tolls statutes of limitation while the injured person is a minor. A child hurt at age 10 in an ordinary private-party case often has until age 20 to file suit.
That rule does not apply to the Government Claims Act presentation requirement. Section 352(b) expressly excludes actions against a public entity or public employee where a claim is required. A parent or guardian can and should present the claim on the child’s behalf within six months. Waiting until the child turns 18 is not a plan. It is how these cases die.
What minority does give you: late-claim relief — not an automatic extension
If the six-month window is missed, California does not pretend the claim was timely. It gives a late-claim path.
Application to the entity (Gov. Code § 911.4). You may apply in writing for leave to present a late claim. The application must be presented within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the cause of action accrued, state the reason for the delay, and attach the proposed claim. In computing that one-year outer limit, § 911.4(c)(1) says the time during which the injured person was a minor shall be counted. Minority does not pause the one-year outer limit the way many people expect.
When the entity must grant the application (Gov. Code § 911.6). The board shall grant late-claim leave if the injured person was a minor during all of the original six-month presentation period (§ 911.6(b)(2)), or was a minor during any of that period provided the late-claim application is presented within six months of turning 18 or one year after the claim accrues, whichever occurs first (§ 911.6(b)(3)).
Court petition if the entity denies (Gov. Code § 946.6). If the application is denied or deemed denied after 45 days, you may petition the superior court for relief. The petition generally must be filed within six months of the denial.
Late-claim relief for injured children is often granted when the papers are done correctly and on time. It is still a second-best procedure. The clean path is a timely claim in the child’s name, presented by a parent or guardian, within six months.
What you still have to prove after the claim is on file
A timely claim only gets you in the door. A § 835 case still requires proof that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury; that the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred; that the condition was a proximate cause of the child’s injury; and that the entity either created the condition through a negligent or wrongful act of an employee, or had actual or constructive notice long enough to have protected against it. Trivial defects lose. Notice is often the fight.
What parents in San Francisco should do in the first weeks
- Get the child medical care and keep every record.
- Photograph the hazard the same day if it is safe to do so — distance shots, close-ups, and something that shows scale.
- Identify the entity that owns or controls the property. A city sidewalk, a schoolyard, a MUNI platform, and a state highway are not the same defendant.
- Do not wait for the full medical picture. The claim clock usually starts on the injury date.
- Present a compliant written claim under Government Code § 910 within six months.
- If six months has already passed but one year has not, treat it as an emergency late-claim application.
Frequently asked questions
No. The six-month claim under § 911.2 still runs. CCP § 352 minority tolling does not apply to that presentation requirement.
Yes. Section 910 allows the claim to be presented by the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf.
Not automatically. You may still have a late-claim application under § 911.4 if you are within one year of accrual, and minority is a statutory ground for relief under § 911.6. After one year, relief is generally unavailable.
The liability theory may differ slightly, but the six-month claim rule is the same whenever the defendant is a public entity and a claim is required.
The private-party claim may still have the ordinary two-year statute, with minority tolling. The public-entity piece still needs its own timely government claim.
Talk to me before the six months runs
If your child was hurt on public property in San Francisco or anywhere in the Bay Area, the first question is not how old they will be when you sue. The first question is whether a written claim has been presented to the right public entity.
I am John J. Roach. I personally handle dangerous-condition and government-claim cases — intake, claim drafting, evidence, negotiation, and trial if the entity will not pay what the case is worth. Consultations are free. You pay no attorney fees unless I recover for you. Call (415) 851-4557. Se habla español.
This article is general information about California claim-presentation rules. It is not legal advice about any particular incident. Deadlines turn on the facts, the correct public entity, and the date the cause of action accrued.