“Causation” is an essential element of a tort action. Defendants are not liable unless their conduct (i.e., act or omission constituting a breach of duty to plaintiff) was a “legal cause” of plaintiff’s injury. [Saelzler v.Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 C4th 763, 772, 107 CR2d 617, 623; PPG Industries, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1999) 20 C4th 310, 315, 84 CR2d 455, 458–459; Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc. (2004) 117 CA4th 635, 696, 11 CR3d 807, 858]. Legal causation is generally a question of fact to be determined by the jury, unless, as a matter of law, the facts admit of only one conclusion. [Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 C4th 1200, 1205–1206, 114 CR2d 470, 474–475; Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc., supra, 117 CA4th at 694, 11CR3d at 857]. In your present case, the factual situation of the accident may be presented in order to prove that there exists no legal cause as to the injury since the same arose from an accident.
Furthermore, the parent-child relationship does not itself render parents vicariously liable for their minor child’s torts. Any vicarious liability attaches to the parents only under general tort law principles. However, parental liability may lie under any of the following circumstances: The parent has knowledge of the child’s prior misconduct; The parent signed the child’s driver’s license application or the child drives the parent’s car with permission; The child is guilty of willful misconduct; The child was given access to firearms; The child defaced another’s property with; The child is convicted of a crime and ordered to pay restitution to the victim. Unless the situation falls under one of these circumstances, a parent therefore cannot be held liable for his or her child’s tortious act. It would be best to personally seek assistance from a lawyer to guide you with the procedure in a personal injury claim.