Struck Outside a Crosswalk by a Distracted Driver
Start a free AI-assisted chat and connect with an experienced California attorney, with no obligation.
Reviewed & verified by A. Jason Velez, Esq.*
Founding Attorney, 1LAW · Last reviewed February 8, 2023
Legal Inquiry
Consumer Legal Issue
I was crossing the street at just about dusk. Most vehicles had their headlights on. I was not in the crosswalk; however, the driver that hit me did not have his headlights on! Also, he was caught using his cell phone at the time via a street camera at the intersection. My hip was broken and I went to the hospital.
Attorney Answer
Crossing outside a crosswalk reduces what you recover in California. It does not end your claim. That is the whole shape of the answer, and the rest is about protecting the evidence before it disappears.
California is a pure comparative fault state. Civil Code § 1714(a) provides: "Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself." That closing clause is not a bar. Under the pure comparative system the California Supreme Court applied in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978), a claimant's recovery is reduced only to the extent their own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury. A share of fault assigned to you comes off the top. It does not close the door.
And there is a good deal on the other side of that ledger here. A driver with no headlights on at dusk, and a driver looking at a phone, are both failures of ordinary care in the sense § 1714(a) describes. Those are the facts an insurer will have to answer for.
One point worth raising with a lawyer: "not in the crosswalk" is not always the end of it. Vehicle Code § 21950 governs marked crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks at intersections, and an unmarked crosswalk can exist at an intersection where nothing is painted on the road. You mention a camera at the intersection, so where exactly you were crossing in relation to it may matter more than you think. That is a fact question for someone who can look at the scene and the footage, not something to conclude from a page.
The camera is the urgent item. Intersection and traffic footage is routinely overwritten on a short cycle, and once it is gone it is gone.
What you can do
1. Send a written request, right away, to the agency that operates the intersection camera asking it to preserve the footage from that date and time. Send the same request to any nearby business with an exterior camera.
2. Get the traffic collision report number from the agency that responded and request a copy of the report. If an officer noted the headlights or the phone, that note matters.
3. Keep everything about the hip: emergency records, any surgical report, follow-up visits, physical therapy, bills, and any work you have missed.
4. Report the claim to the driver's insurer, and tell your own insurer as well if you carry a policy — medical payments and uninsured motorist coverage can matter, and notice is usually required whether or not you use it.
5. Ask a local lawyer before you give a recorded statement about where you were crossing. That single subject is where the whole comparative-fault argument lives, and it is worth having advice first.
6. Most lawyers offer a brief initial call at no cost, and a few minutes on your specific facts with a local attorney is worth more than any general guidance, including this page.
⏱ Time limits apply. A claim for injury runs on Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, which allows two years for an action for injury caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. Where that falls on your facts, and whether anything in your circumstances changes it, is not something to calculate from a webpage. Have a local attorney confirm it — and do not let the footage question wait on that.
Cases Cited
Published decisions relevant to this issue, provided as legal background rather than advice about any particular case.
- Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978) — Cal. Supreme Court
Cited for the proposition that a claimant's own share reduces recovery in proportion rather than barring it — the entire answer to a pedestrian who was outside the crosswalk, and a proposition § 1714(a)'s text does not state.
*Attorney review is supported by AI-assisted drafting and legal research algorithms. Use of this Chat does not create an attorney-client relationship.
By using this service you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.
Courts & Legal Aid in California
- File or look up a case through the California Courts.
- Get free civil legal help from LawHelpCA.
- Use the LSC — Find Legal Aid to find a local legal-aid office by ZIP code.
- Use the LawHelp.org to browse free legal information and self-help resources.
- Use the ABA Lawyer Referral Directory to get matched with a local attorney through your state bar.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a pedestrian hit outside a crosswalk still recover in California?
Yes. California applies pure comparative fault: Civil Code § 1714(a) makes each person responsible for injury occasioned by their want of ordinary care, subject to the injured person's own share, and the recovery is reduced in proportion to that share rather than barred (Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978)). Crossing outside a crosswalk is a factor a jury weighs, not a defense that ends the case, and a driver's own failures — speed, inattention, no headlights — are weighed on the other side.
Does California recognize crosswalks that are not painted?
Yes. Vehicle Code § 21950 addresses a pedestrian crossing within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, and requires a driver approaching a pedestrian in either to exercise all due care and reduce speed. An unmarked crosswalk can exist at an intersection where nothing is painted on the roadway. Whether a particular crossing point falls inside one is a fact question about the specific intersection, and it is worth checking rather than assuming.
How is fault divided when both the driver and the pedestrian were careless?
It is divided by share rather than decided all-or-nothing. Civil Code § 1714(a) supplies the responsibility rule and its closing clause accounts for the injured person's own want of ordinary care, and under the pure comparative system the recovery is reduced only to the extent the claimant's own lack of reasonable care contributed to the injury (Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 725 (1978)). There is no percentage at which a California claim is cut off entirely.