Pedestrian Accidents

A person on foot has no metal around them, which is why these are catastrophic-injury cases far more often than their numbers suggest.

And they are the cases where the deadline is most likely to be six months rather than two years — because a crossing, a signal, a street light, or a bus is very often part of what happened.

The six-month deadline nobody expects

If a public entity contributed in any way, Government Code § 911.2(a) applies:

"A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person … shall be presented … not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action."

Then, once the entity responds — or does not:

In a pedestrian case a public entity is in the picture more often than not: a signal with an inadequate crossing interval, a marked crosswalk with no lighting, a missing or obscured sign, an obstructed sight line, a city or transit bus, a street sweeper, a maintenance truck.

The six-month clock runs while you are still in hospital. That is the practical problem with it, and it is the single most common way a good pedestrian case is lost.

The driver is usually not the only defendant

The driver, and their employer if they were working — which is agency, and therefore outside the $15,000 imputed-liability cap in Vehicle Code § 17151(a).

A commercial vehicle's carrier, with the records that come with it. How a commercial case is different.

A property owner, where a driveway, hedge, sign, or parked delivery vehicle blocked the sight line — Civil Code § 1714 and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, which framed the duty in the statute's own words:

"Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person."

And a public entity, for a dangerous condition of public property.

Being partly at fault, and the Proposition 213 question

Crossing outside a crosswalk does not end a case. California is a pure comparative negligence state — under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 damages are "diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering." There is no cut-off percentage.

On Proposition 213, read the statute carefully. Civil Code § 3333.4(a) bars non-economic damages for three people: a driver convicted under Vehicle Code § 23152 or § 23153, the owner of an uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, and an operator who cannot establish financial responsibility.

A person on foot is none of those three. In Horwich v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 272, the Supreme Court read the section as operating "against only a plaintiff who is the uninsured owner or operator" of the vehicle involved.

Carriers assert Proposition 213 anyway, on the theory that an uninsured car at home is enough. That is worth arguing rather than conceding, and it is a reason to say early that you were walking.

What to do this week

Photograph the location at the same time of day, including the signal timing, the lighting, and anything blocking the sight line. Cities repair and repaint, and the scene changes.

Identify every vehicle and every entity. A bus number, a fleet decal, or a municipal plate changes the deadline from two years to six months.

Get the traffic collision report and the signal timing records, which are usually held by the city's transportation department and are a public record.

Say now if a city, county, transit agency or the state may be involved. The six-month claim has already started running.

Common questions