However, even though pedestrians have had the right of way most of the time, they may be held accountable for any accidents they cause with a vehicle. Pedestrians injured in Seattle while crossing a street are inclined to keep the car responsible for their injuries. A widespread misunderstanding is that the pedestrian has always had the right of way while crossing the street. When an automobile hits a person, the pedestrian may be at fault. For additional details, please continue reading below.

Finding Out Who Is Responsible For An Accident Between A Pedestrian And An Automobile

Assume a person is struck by a car. After that, you tell a friend: “Walkers were to blame for the accident, not the vehicle. Ice cream trucks are everywhere, so this guy ran into the street to get his hands on some!”

Injuries sustained in a car accident may be blamed on the driver. Jurors or insurance brokers often make the final decision instead of a witness. In addition, there are related statutes (such as speed restrictions), policy findings from official reports, and sometimes expert testimony that is pertinent to the case.

Let’s say a car is clearly at fault when a pedestrian is injured or killed. A pedestrian may sue the motorist and the driver’s health insurer for damages in this situation, and the insurance provider is unlikely to object—although the first proposed settlement may be modest, so you may need to refute.

It is presumed that the pedestrian was solely at blame for the incident; hence the pedestrians may not seek damages from the driver.


In most accidents, the automobile driver is at least somewhat to blame, even if the pedestrian is at fault. There is a possibility that the driver was either going too fast or inattentive to brake to avoid hitting a jaywalker.

Assume that a foot and a driver share the responsibility for an accident. State-by-state variations exist, but the two legal notions that underlie all shared responsibility statutes are comparative carelessness and contributory negligence, respectively.

  • Relative Indifference

Any time an injured person is found to have contributed to or caused the underlying accident, a rule of comparative negligence is applied. One must have participated in the accident in some way to be entitled to reimbursement under a “pure relative negligence” criteria. As a result, the personal damages awarded to the injured individual are reduced by the same percentage.

Consider a situation in which a driver was under the influence of alcohol and behind the wheel of a vehicle. As a pedestrian with a “Walk” indicator approaches an intersection, she sends a text message. People are injured when a driver’s automobile collides with a pedestrian. Some individuals prefer the concept of “modified comparative negligence” as an alternative to the more traditional concept. In areas where this legislation is implemented, the injured person may sue anybody responsible for the accident, as long as the aggrieved person bears or less than 50% (the percentage varies significantly) of the liability.

  • Ignorance That’s a contributing factor.

Alabama, DC, Maryland, and Virginia are the few states that still enforce this outdated (and draconian) rule.

A one-size-fits-all approach to contributory negligence is in place. You won’t be able to sue the other party for compensation if you’re found to be at least partly liable for an accident.


When a pedestrian is involved in a car collision, the pedestrian’s injuries are generally more severe than the driver’s. At the same time, its vehicle is undamaged, and no one in the car is hurt. Due to their lack of vehicle protection, pedestrians are especially vulnerable on the road.

That, together with the generally held view that “Pedestrians have always had the right of way,” causes some people to feel that a walker cannot be held accountable for a car incident. There are times when this isn’t the case. When a pedestrian is solely or partially responsible for an accident, we discussed it in this piece.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button