Short answer. No. Prescription runs against minors who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives, so the clock started when the claim arose and did not wait for the child's eighteenth birthday. What Article 1109 suspends is prescription between parents and children, not a child's claim against a stranger.
What the law says
Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against: (1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives;
Civil Code, Article 1108 — Against Whom Prescription Runs. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Neither does prescription run between parents and children, during the minority or insanity of the latter, and between guardian and ward during the continuance of the guardianship.
Civil Code, Article 1109 — When Prescription Does Not Run. Read the full provision →
The clock runs against a child who has a parent
The provision that answers this is blunt: prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, runs against: (1) Minors and other incapacitated persons who have parents, guardians or other legal representatives;. The reasoning is that the child was never without a means of suing. A minor does not litigate personally, but the parent or guardian can act for them, so the law treats the claim as one that could have been brought. Age is not, by itself, a shield against the running of time — the presence or absence of someone able to act for the child is what the article turns on.
What Article 1109 actually suspends
The article is about relationships, not about age in general. Prescription does not run between husband and wife, and neither does prescription run between parents and children, during the minority or insanity of the latter, and between guardian and ward during the continuance of the guardianship. The point is that the law will not expect a claim to be pressed by one of these parties against the other while the relationship of dependence continues. So a child's claim against their own parent or guardian is protected while the minority or the guardianship lasts. A claim against the driver who hit them is not.
Which means the parent's inaction is the risk
This is an uncomfortable rule and it is worth stating plainly. Where a child is injured, the person the law expects to protect the claim is the parent, and years spent waiting for the child to grow up are years spent letting the period run. Article 1107 confirms the frame: minors may acquire property or rights by prescription personally or through their parents, guardians or legal representatives. The representative is treated as the child's means of acting. Nothing in the chapter promises a fresh start at eighteen.
What to establish before assuming it is too late
Two dates decide it: when the claim arose, and what period governs it. Then look for anything that interrupted the running — Article 1155 recognises filing in court, a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, and a written acknowledgment by the person liable. A demand letter sent at the time, or a written admission from an insurer or the other family, may have preserved more than you think. Bring the medical records, the correspondence and the dates to a lawyer rather than concluding the matter is closed.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1108 — Against Whom Prescription Runs
- Civil Code, Article 1155 — The Three Ways to Interrupt Prescription