CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Who Is at Fault in a Pedestrian Accident?

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in

crosswalk scene mom and sonDrivers must remain alert for potential dangers, including pedestrians. If a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle, it is easy to assume that the driver is at fault – but pedestrians sometimes bear some or all of the fault for these accidents.

If you were involved in a pedestrian accident that you think was not your fault, it is important to talk to an experienced car accident lawyer in Sacramento, CA about your case. We can help explain how fault is determined, how California state laws impact this determination and your ability to pursue compensation.

Determining Fault in a Pedestrian-and-Vehicle Accident

In some collisions, the driver of the vehicle is clearly at fault, such as when the driver:

  • Ran a red light
  • Failed to stop at a crosswalk
  • Made a right turn without looking for pedestrians

However, there are also some situations where it is not as obvious who is at fault. The pedestrian may be at fault if he or she:

  • Was jaywalking at the time of the accident
  • Did not cross the road at a crosswalk even though one was available
  • Was impaired by alcohol or drugs
  • Was walking where pedestrian traffic is prohibited

The insurance adjuster may conduct an investigation to determine who was at fault for the accident. This investigation may include:

  • Talking to the motorist and the pedestrian
  • Talking to any witnesses
  • Reviewing the police report
  • Determining whether the speed limit was obeyed by the driver
  • Determining whether a crosswalk was available and used by the pedestrian

If the case goes to trial, the jury will likely be provided with these types of evidence for consideration.

Shared Fault in Pedestrian Accidents

Fault may also be shared between both parties. A combination of factors may cause an accident, such as the driver speeding and the pedestrian entering the roadway when it is not permitted.

If both parties share responsibility, rules regarding pure comparative negligence apply. Under this system, fault is divided between the parties involved. This rule allows personal injury victims to pursue compensation even if they were partially or mostly responsible for the accident.

However, each party’s recovery is reduced by his or her own share of fault. For example, if a pedestrian is 30 percent responsible for an accident and suffers $100,000 in damages, he or she can recover up to $70,000 since his or her award is reduced by 30 percent, or $30,000. This reduction is made by an insurance adjuster when making a settlement offer or by a jury when determining fault.

The term “pure” refers to the ability of each party to pursue some compensation even if he or she was more than 50 percent at fault. In other states, parties cannot pursue compensation if they were 50 percent or more at fault for the accident.

Contact a Lawyer for Assistance

If you were injured in a pedestrian accident, contact the Arnold Law Firm for assistance. Our injury attorneys will conduct a thorough investigation to determine your true degree of fault and help you receive the compensation you deserve for your medical expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering.

Contact us today to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced lawyer to discuss your case and learn about your legal options.

Call (916) 777-7777 or fill out our Free Case Evaluation form to get started.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.