4 ms·

Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-

Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have... In general because a driver is so unlikely to be hurt, I can't imagine them suing? But these lawyers say this: "If the pedestrian did not have the right of way and got hit by a car, the pedestrian may be responsible for the accident. With that responsibility comes liability. If the pedestrian is liable, he or she may have to compensate the driver for the costs of the crash, even if the pedestrian was more severely hurt." I didn't pull caselaw here, because the issue here is that liability WOULD be very easy to show against the crosswalk collective attracting ped crossings to dangerous intersections. That is my (very unpopular) point. I would hope someone would sue them if they had a relative killed though or particularly a child. Editing to add: The "right of way" is not automatic, pedestrians have a duty of care still. I think folks are getting confused between pedestrians can cross at all intersections (true, it is not jaywalking even if no crosswalk) and things like a driver is always at fault etc. i. Pedestrians must use reasonable care at all times. Pedestrians are required by statute to obey traffic signs and signals. Further, every pedestrian has the duty, before entering a street, to make reasonably careful observations to ascertain traffic conditions to be encountered; thus, a pedestrian has a duty to look in the direction from which an approaching motorist might endanger the pedestrian’s safety, to exercise reasonable care at all times while crossing the street and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury. ii. Pedestrians cannot walk in front of a motor vehicle. Under the law, a pedestrian who is aware of the approach of a vehicle should not begin or continue crossing a street in such proximity to the crossing or traveling at such speed as to constitute an imminent peril. A driver has the right to assume that a pedestrian will not leave a place of safety to step directly in front of the driver’s vehicle.

Talanes 4y ago
But that's still not relevant, because pedestrians inherently have the right of way at intersections under California law.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
I think the parent’s point is that the pedestrian already has the right of way, but drivers are ignoring that.
Taniwha 4y ago
yes but this is California, by law there is a crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection (ie those with no traffic lights) pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way
- pwg 4y ago
  The page at the link that @onphonenow provided details numerous ways, written into California law, that a pedestrian may not always have the right of way.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    IANAL but I read this differently. The pedestrian has the right of way at any intersection unless indicated otherwise. However there are also restriction on when a pedestrian can cross. So in practice this means that a driver should always yield before a pedestrian, however failing to do so the pedestrian is not allowed to walk in front of the car. So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop. What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      The pedestrian isn't even crossing illegally in that scenario. They are forbidden from crossing if it creates an "immediate hazard". If the driver has room to safely stop, it's not an immediate hazard.
lalopalota 4y ago
The "duty of care" exists whether or not there is paint on the road. How can the painters be liable?

Talanes 4y ago

But that's still not relevant, because pedestrians inherently have the right of way at intersections under California law.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

I think the parent’s point is that the pedestrian already has the right of way, but drivers are ignoring that.

Taniwha 4y ago

yes but this is California, by law there is a crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection (ie those with no traffic lights) pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way

pwg 4y ago
The page at the link that @onphonenow provided details numerous ways, written into California law, that a pedestrian may not always have the right of way.
- runarberg 4y ago
  IANAL but I read this differently. The pedestrian has the right of way at any intersection unless indicated otherwise. However there are also restriction on when a pedestrian can cross. So in practice this means that a driver should always yield before a pedestrian, however failing to do so the pedestrian is not allowed to walk in front of the car. So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop. What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    The pedestrian isn't even crossing illegally in that scenario. They are forbidden from crossing if it creates an "immediate hazard". If the driver has room to safely stop, it's not an immediate hazard.

lalopalota 4y ago

The "duty of care" exists whether or not there is paint on the road. How can the painters be liable?