On the afternoon of April 16, 2026, an 81-year-old man named Ed Ashman was walking through his Lake Forest neighborhood near the corner of Toledo Way and Ridge Route Drive. A former United States Marine Corps captain who had served as a pilot during the Vietnam War, Ashman had spent his recent years working as a substitute teacher at El Toro High School. He was, by every account in the community, the kind of person who waved to neighbors and remembered students by name.
In an instant, that life was nearly taken from him. A 14-year-old boy doing wheelies on a high-powered electric motorcycle slammed into Ashman, threw him to the pavement, and fled the scene. Ashman was rushed to the hospital with critical, life-threatening injuries. He underwent surgery on April 19 and remains in critical condition as of publication.1
Five days after the crash, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges. Not against the boy alone, but against his mother, 50-year-old Tommi Jo Mejer of Aliso Viejo. Prosecutors charged her with felony child endangerment and felony accessory after the fact, along with three misdemeanor counts. They alleged she had been formally warned by sheriff’s deputies almost a year before the crash that her son’s e-motorcycle was illegal for him to ride, and that she allowed him to keep riding it anyway.2
The case is rare not because a teenager hurt someone, but because California prosecutors went straight up the family tree. And it is shining a hard light on a question that thousands of Orange County families have been quietly asking for the past two years: who pays when a neighbor’s kid, riding a vehicle that was never legal in the first place, leaves you or someone you love with injuries that change everything?
What We Know About the Lake Forest E-Motorcycle Crash
According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and the District Attorney’s Office, the crash happened around 4 p.m. on April 16 near Toledo Way and Ridge Route Drive in Lake Forest, near El Toro High School. The teenager was operating a 2025 Surron Ultra Bee, a high-powered electric motorcycle capable of speeds up to 58 mph. He was reportedly performing wheelies in the middle of the street when he struck Ashman head-on, then continued without stopping. Witnesses gave deputies a description of the rider, which led investigators to a Lake Forest residence where they served a search warrant and arrested the teen.3
Prosecutors say two Orange County Sheriff’s deputies had personally warned the teen’s mother in June 2025, almost a full year before the crash, in a 28-minute interaction that was captured on body-worn camera. According to the District Attorney’s Office, Mejer admitted during that contact that she had purchased the Surron e-motorcycle for her son and knew he rode it recklessly. Deputies told her the vehicle was illegal for her son to operate and warned her she could face criminal charges if she continued to allow it. Prosecutors say she allowed it anyway, and after the April 16 crash, she initially denied owning the vehicle when questioned.4
On April 21, 2026, Mejer was arrested at the Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange. The District Attorney’s Office charged her with one felony count of child endangerment, one felony count of accessory after the fact, one misdemeanor count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, one misdemeanor count of loaning a motor vehicle to an unlicensed driver, and one misdemeanor count of providing false information to a peace officer. If convicted on all counts, she faces a maximum sentence of six years and eight months in state prison. She was released the following day and is scheduled to return to court in October 2026.5
The teenager faces his own juvenile proceedings, the details of which are not public. Ashman remains hospitalized.
According to the District Attorney’s Office, Mejer is the third Orange County parent charged this year alone in a case involving a child illegally riding an e-motorcycle. Similar cases were filed earlier in 2026 in Yorba Linda and Huntington Beach.6
Why California Law Goes After the Parent, Not Just the Child
Most people assume that if a kid hurts you, your only target is the kid. In California, that assumption is wrong, and the Lake Forest case shows exactly why. State law gives victims of accidents involving minors several distinct paths to hold parents financially responsible, and each path has different rules, different proof requirements, and very different damages caps.
The first path is California Civil Code § 1714.1, the willful misconduct statute. When a minor intentionally causes injury to another person, that conduct is imputed to the parent or guardian who has custody and control of the child. The parent becomes jointly and severally liable for damages with the child. The catch is that liability under this statute is capped at a statutory amount that the Judicial Council adjusts every two years to reflect cost-of-living changes, and recovery is limited to medical, dental, and hospital expenses. It does not include pain and suffering.7
The second path comes from the California Vehicle Code. Section 17708 imposes liability on a parent or guardian who gives express or implied permission for a minor to drive a motor vehicle on a highway, whether or not the minor is licensed. The parent becomes jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages approximately resulting from the minor’s negligent driving. Section 17709 caps that liability at $15,000 for injury to one person and $30,000 per accident.8
Here is the critical point that most articles miss: those statutory caps do not limit a parent’s own independent negligence. When a parent buys an inappropriate vehicle for a child, knows the child is dangerous on it, and does nothing about it, the parent can be sued directly for negligent entrustment and negligent supervision. California courts have long recognized that parents owe a duty of reasonable care to control a child whose dangerous tendencies are known to them. There is no statutory cap on damages from those independent claims. The injured person can recover the full value of their case, including pain and suffering, lost income, and future medical care, against the parent’s own assets and any applicable insurance coverage.9
In the Lake Forest case, the alleged facts hit every element of those independent claims. According to prosecutors, the parent purchased the motorcycle, knew her son rode it recklessly, was formally warned by law enforcement that the vehicle was illegal for him to ride, and let him keep riding anyway. That is the textbook fact pattern California courts have recognized for decades, and it is precisely why parental liability is at the center of this story.
Why Most Off-Highway E-Motorcycles Are Illegal on California Streets in the First Place
Parents across Orange County have been buying high-powered electric motorcycles for their kids without realizing what they actually purchased. There is a meaningful legal difference between an electric bicycle and an electric motorcycle, and the consequences of getting that difference wrong are now showing up in emergency rooms and criminal courtrooms.
Under California Vehicle Code § 312.5, an electric bicycle has fully operable pedals and an electric motor that does not exceed 750 watts. Class 1 e-bikes are pedal-assist only and capped at 20 mph. Class 2 e-bikes have a throttle but are also capped at 20 mph. Class 3 e-bikes are pedal-assist only and capped at 28 mph. All three classes are legal on most California roads. A 2025 update to the statute (SB 1271) tightened the rules further: vehicles designed or modified to exceed 20 mph on motor power alone, vehicles designed or modified to exceed 750 watts of motor power, and vehicles modified to have their pedals removed are not electric bicycles under California law and cannot be advertised, sold, or labeled as such.10
The Surron Ultra Bee that struck Ed Ashman is not an e-bike. It is a high-output electric machine that, by the District Attorney’s description, is capable of reaching 58 mph. Under California law, that vehicle is classified as a motorcycle. To operate it legally on a public road requires a valid motorcycle license, registration, insurance, and proper safety equipment. A 14-year-old without any of those things, riding it on a Lake Forest street and doing wheelies in residential traffic, is committing multiple Vehicle Code violations before any collision happens.
That matters in a personal injury case because California recognizes a doctrine called negligence per se. When a defendant violates a safety statute designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred, the violation is presumed to be negligence in the civil case. The plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant fell below a reasonable standard of care; the statutory violation does that work for them under California Evidence Code § 669.11
What Compensation Catastrophic Pedestrian Injury Victims Can Pursue
When a pedestrian is struck by any vehicle, including an illegally operated e-motorcycle, California law allows recovery of two categories of damages. Economic damages cover measurable financial losses: emergency room and hospital bills, surgical costs, rehabilitation and physical therapy, prescription medication, future medical care, durable medical equipment, lost wages during recovery, and reduced future earning capacity if the injury permanently affects the victim’s ability to work.
Non-economic damages address the human side of the injury: physical pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and the way a serious injury changes a person’s daily existence and relationships. California does not cap non-economic damages in ordinary personal injury cases.
If the victim does not survive, California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.30 and 377.60 authorize two separate claims. A wrongful death claim, brought by the surviving family, compensates for lost financial support, lost companionship and guidance, grief, and funeral expenses. A survival action, brought on behalf of the deceased’s estate, recovers damages the victim suffered between the moment of injury and death, including conscious pain and suffering.13
In cases involving particularly egregious conduct, California Civil Code § 3294 authorizes punitive damages where a defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, including conscious disregard for the safety of others. Punitive damages punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future. They are not routinely awarded, and whether they are available in any particular case depends on the specific facts proven at trial.14
Six Steps for Families After a Catastrophic E-Motorcycle Pedestrian Strike
1. Get medical care immediately and document everything. Insurance carriers and defense attorneys look hard at gaps in treatment. Same-day medical records are foundational evidence.
2. Photograph the scene as soon as it is safe to do so. Capture the roadway, any skid marks, the position of the e-motorcycle if it was left behind, lighting conditions, sight lines, and any nearby cameras (residential doorbells, business surveillance, or traffic cameras).
3. Request the official crash report from the investigating agency. In Lake Forest, that is typically the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Reports take time to finalize, but requesting one early gets you into the agency’s system and creates a paper trail.
4. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance company without a lawyer present. Anything you say in those early hours, before you know the full extent of the injuries, can be used to reduce or deny your claim.
5. Preserve everything. Do not let anyone repair, sell, or remove the e-motorcycle. Save receipts, medical bills, employment records, and any communications with the at-fault family. If the rider posted videos online of riding the e-motorcycle, screenshot them before they are deleted.
6. Contact a personal injury attorney within days, not weeks. Government claim deadlines, evidence preservation letters, witness identification, and accident reconstruction all become harder with time. The earlier a lawyer can begin investigating, the stronger the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the parents of a teenager who hit me on an illegal e-motorcycle?
Yes, and California law gives you several different ways to do it. If the parent purchased the vehicle and knew the child rode it dangerously, you may have negligent entrustment and negligent supervision claims that are not subject to the statutory caps that limit other forms of parental liability. If the parent gave permission for the child to ride, Vehicle Code § 17708 also applies, subject to its statutory cap. And if the child’s conduct rises to willful misconduct, Civil Code § 1714.1 imputes the child’s actions to the parent. An experienced California pedestrian accident lawyer can identify every available theory in your specific case.
What if the family says the e-motorcycle was just a toy or a bicycle?
California law does not care what the family calls it. The classification turns on the vehicle’s actual specifications: the wattage of the motor, the presence and functionality of pedals, the top speed, and whether the vehicle complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards. High-output Surron-style machines and similar electric motorcycles are not bicycles under California Vehicle Code § 312.5, and operating them on public streets generally violates the Vehicle Code regardless of who is riding.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit after a pedestrian crash like this?
For claims against private individuals, California gives you two years from the date of the injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. For wrongful death claims, the same two-year period applies from the date of death. If a public entity may share responsibility (for example, because of road design or failure to enforce known dangers), you must file a Government Tort Claim within six months under Government Code § 911.2. Time matters, and waiting can permanently bar otherwise valid claims.
Will the family’s homeowners insurance cover injuries caused by their child’s e-motorcycle?
It depends on the specific policy, but the answer is often more complicated than families expect. Many homeowners policies exclude coverage for motorized vehicles, and many auto policies do not cover off-highway machines. There may also be exclusions for willful or intentional acts. An attorney can review the available policies, identify all potential sources of coverage (including umbrella policies, excess policies, and the family’s own assets), and structure the claim to maximize recovery.
What if the criminal case against the parent is still ongoing?
The civil case and the criminal case are entirely separate proceedings with different burdens of proof. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence. You do not have to wait for the criminal case to finish before filing a civil lawsuit, and in most cases waiting is a mistake because civil deadlines and evidence preservation issues do not pause the criminal docket. A criminal conviction can later strengthen the civil case under California Evidence Code § 669, but it is not a prerequisite.
My child rides an e-motorcycle. How worried should I be?
Worried enough to learn what your child is actually riding. If the machine has a motor over 750 watts, no functional pedals, or a top speed over 28 mph, it is not legally an e-bike under California Vehicle Code § 312.5 and probably cannot be ridden on public streets at all. Parents who let unlicensed teenagers ride illegal off-highway motorcycles in residential neighborhoods are taking on substantial civil and now criminal exposure. The Lake Forest case is the clearest signal yet that prosecutors and plaintiffs’ lawyers are paying attention.
How Wunderli Injury Law Can Help
Cases involving illegal e-motorcycles, catastrophic pedestrian injuries, and parental liability are not ordinary personal injury cases. They require careful legal analysis to identify every theory of recovery, aggressive evidence preservation before key digital records vanish, and the resources to litigate against families and insurance companies who often deny everything until they cannot.
At Wunderli Injury Law, PC, we represent injured pedestrians and grieving families throughout Orange County and Southern California. We work on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for your family.
If you or someone you love has been struck by a teenager on an e-bike or e-motorcycle anywhere in Southern California, call us at (949) 866-3833 or visit wininjurylaw.com/contact for a free, no-obligation consultation. The sooner you act, the more options you have.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws cited are California statutes as of publication date and are subject to change. If you have been injured, contact a qualified California personal injury attorney to discuss your rights. Wunderli Injury Law, PC serves clients throughout Southern California.
CITATIONS
1. KTLA, “O.C. mom charged after teen on e-motorcycle critically injures veteran” (April 22, 2026), https://ktla.com/news/orange-county/o-c-mom-charged-after-teen-on-e-motorcycle-critically-injures-veteran/; FOX 11 Los Angeles, “OC mother charged with felony after son’s e-motorcycle crash critically injures veteran” (April 22, 2026); CBS Los Angeles, “Southern California mother charged after teenage son hits, critically injures Vietnam veteran on e-motorcycle” (April 22, 2026); Lake Forest Patch, “OC Mom Of Boy, 14, Who Critically Injured Vietnam Vet In E-Moto Hit And Run Charged: DA” (April 2026).
2. Orange County District Attorney’s Office, formal charges filed April 21, 2026 against Tommi Jo Mejer; ABC7 Los Angeles, “Aliso Viejo mother charged after teen son crashes into 81-year-old man while riding e-motorcycle” (April 22, 2026)
3. Orange County Sheriff’s Department, public statements regarding April 16, 2026 incident at Toledo Way and Ridge Route Drive, Lake Forest. The vehicle is publicly identified as a 2025 Surron Ultra Bee with a maximum speed of 58 mph.
4. Orange County District Attorney’s Office press release describing the June 2025 contact. The DA’s Office described the encounter as a “28-minute interaction with two Orange County Sheriff’s deputies captured on body-worn camera.” Bodyworn camera footage has reportedly been preserved.
5. Cal. Penal Code § 273a (child endangerment); Cal. Penal Code § 32 (accessory after the fact). Misdemeanor charges include contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Cal. Penal Code § 272), loaning a motor vehicle to an unlicensed driver (Cal. Veh. Code § 14606), and providing false information to a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 148.9). Maximum sentence calculation per Orange County District Attorney charging announcement.
6. ABC7 Los Angeles, supra note 2 (quoting OC DA Todd Spitzer that Mejer is the third Orange County parent prosecuted in 2026 for similar conduct, citing earlier cases in Yorba Linda and Huntington Beach).
7. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.1 (parental liability for willful misconduct of a minor). Subdivision (c) provides that the cap amounts in subdivisions (a) and (b) are adjusted every two years by the Judicial Council to reflect cost-of-living changes, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars, with the adjusted amount published on or before July 1 of each odd-numbered year. Subdivision (e) caps an insurer’s exposure at $10,000.
8. Cal. Veh. Code § 17707 (parental liability where parent signs minor’s license application); Cal. Veh. Code § 17708 (parental liability where minor drives motor vehicle with express or implied parental permission, licensed or unlicensed); Cal. Veh. Code § 17709 (statutory caps of $15,000 per person / $30,000 per accident); Cal. Veh. Code § 415 (defining “motor vehicle” as any self-propelled vehicle).
9. Negligent entrustment and negligent supervision are common-law torts recognized in California and are not subject to the statutory caps in Vehicle Code § 17709 or Civil Code § 1714.1. See Reida v. Lund (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 698, 702 (negligent supervision requires showing the parent was aware of habits or tendencies of the child making misbehavior likely); Johnson v. Peterson (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 619 (parental liability uncapped where minor was acting as parent’s agent). See also CACI No. 410 (negligent supervision); CACI No. 428 (parental liability).
10. Cal. Veh. Code § 312.5 (defining electric bicycle and the three classes), as amended by Stats. 2024, Ch. 791 (SB 1271), effective January 1, 2025 (clarifying that vehicles modified or designed to exceed 20 mph on motor power alone, exceed 750 watts, or have pedals removed are not electric bicycles). Vehicles that do not meet the e-bike definition are governed by other Vehicle Code provisions and generally cannot be operated on public streets without registration, licensing, and insurance.
11. Cal. Evid. Code § 669 (negligence per se: unexcused violation of a statute designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred is presumed to be negligence).
12. Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2 (six-month deadline to present claim against public entity); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death). A late-claim procedure exists under Gov. Code § 911.4 in limited circumstances, but it is discretionary.
13. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30 (survival action by decedent’s estate); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60 (wrongful death action by surviving spouse, children, and certain dependents).
14. Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (punitive damages available where defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, including conscious disregard for safety of others).
© 2026 Wunderli Injury Law, PC • Dana Point, California • wininjurylaw.com