Only if someone is, as in this case, injured or killed. In such instannces the responsible party (i.e. the father)can be charged with endangerment or neglegent homocide for failing to control the situation. If the girl had kept the car in the lot and accidently hit an unoccupied car, her father or his insurance company would be responsible for damages, but she would have commited no crime.
Isn't the intent in this case the same? Wether or not the object that she hit was inanimate or something breathing (ie. human, dog, cat, etc.)?