Whos at fault if a pedestrian jumps in front of your car/bike?

[Buddhacide]

This is a bit of a theoretical. Yesterday I was driving the speed limit on Bloor around Christie, there was a truck (big and boxy) with his blinkers on in the opposite left hand lane (not the curb lane). As I was going by this woman darted from behind the truck into traffic. If I was not in blocking position I might have hit her. If I was in a car I likely would have. There was no way to see her, and she didnt seem to have any way to look - but out she went. So, I didnt really come close to hitting her but it got me thinking. Does hitting a pedestrian make the driver always at fault? Or is there some leeway for pedestrian error? Its an extreme example, but what if somone deliberately wanted to commit suicide, and chose to jump in front of a car by hiding behind a big boxy truck that was double parked and jumping out at the last minute, but nobody knew her intentions. Would the driver of the car necessarily be charged? Like not following too closely to avoid rear ending people that brake suddenly, is there some rationale that places guilt on the driver unequivicolly or would the law consider the obstruction of the truck and the poor judgement of the pedestrian?

 

[jeero]

I would hope that the pedestrians are the ones considered at fault since, by law, they are supposed to cross at intersections and marked crosswalks.
You might get the "you're supposed to drive in a way that you can stop in time for anything to happen" but realistically sometimes that's just not possible such as your example above.

It's things like this that make me want to start running a camera any and every time I am driving through towns. People cross streets like they own the place and if my truck hits someone and they die, they won't be able to admit that they crossed the street like an idiot. My only aid would be if there were witnesses but that's not something I want to place my bets on.
Something like a permanent camera seen in police vehicles would be nice to have.

 

[caboose56]

Hitting a pedestrian is not like rear-ending someone where you are automatically at fault.

Fault can be put on the pedestrian or the driver, depends on the circumstances.

 

[GayManLoveIsOK]

jay walking, she is at fault...

 

[Buddhacide]

Thanks. Thats good to know.

But Jay walking? I seem to recall that not mattering much. I'm not sure from where.

 

[r6rollin]

I had a buddy of mine in the same situation but in a car except he hit the person, cops showed up and said the pedestrian was at fault and sent him on his way with a busted up front end

 

[Buddhacide]

Thats interesting, did he have the option of pursuing damages?

 

[unL33T]

jay walking, she is at fault...

I've always heard the opposite. From what I heard, unless you can prove (usually via witnesses) you didn't have time to stop, had no way to see them, or they ran in front of you (probably trying to kill themselves or just plain crazy) then you're screwed. Something to do with the law not wanting to make it legal to run down jay walkers. But, like I said, that's just what I heard which is probably wrong.

Couldn't the chick have peeked around the truck before running into traffic?

 

[nobbie48]

Thats interesting, did he have the option of pursuing damages?

A woman in PQ went after the estate of a person she hit with her car. The pedestrian was at fault and the woman didn't see why she should have to pay for the damages. The damages were not all that much and the estate was chump change as well.

While she had every right to do so the good press tried hard to make her look like a cruel bit**.

The reality is that it isn't hard to do over a grand in damages hitting a person. A buddy hit a deer with his Goldwing and although the bike was still rideable the fix-up was about $5G IIRC. If the cager has a full financial load with kids in college, mortgage, car loan, why should he have to increase his debt load because someone else was careless?

I'll save my rant on e-bikes etc for another time.

 

[unL33T]

A woman in PQ went after the estate of a person she hit with her car. The pedestrian was at fault and the woman didn't see why she should have to pay for the damages. The damages were not all that much and the estate was chump change as well.

While she had every right to do so the good press tried hard to make her look like a cruel bit**.

The reality is that it isn't hard to do over a grand in damages hitting a person. A buddy hit a deer with his Goldwing and although the bike was still rideable the fix-up was about $5G IIRC. If the cager has a full financial load with kids in college, mortgage, car loan, why should he have to increase his debt load because someone else was careless?

I'll save my rant on e-bikes etc for another time.

Statefarm got a bunch of bad press last year or the year before for going after the family that owned a dog that got hit and did a pile of damage to the car. Statefarm was made to look oh so cruel for trying to get financial compensation after a "member of our family" was taken from them.

 

[invictus43]

Many pedestrians are killed in Toronto every year but few of the drivers are ever charged. Unless they can show you were driving with undue care and attention you have a good chance to get off. A lot of those pedestrians are crossing at unmarked crossings, at night and in poor conditions. I mean, it's terrible, but you can't prevent every possible bad situation.

 

[Buddhacide]

Thats a tough one. If the person walked away from it that's one thing, but to go after a modest estate after you were involved in their death, even if not culpable...I dont know, I guess it depends on the situation but thats pretty cold. Reminds me of China sending a bill for the victims of Tiananmen Square for the bullets that were used to kill protesters. A bit of a stretch sure, but the impact on the family would be similar.

 

[Hi RPM]

I'll save my rant on e-bikes etc for another time.

ill take over, dont worry...


WHAT THE $#&% who do they think they are? those things are road ILLIGAL! its funny how they think "ohh ill just drive on the right side of the slow lane" ... NO you are STILL on the road, one time there was this fairly big pileup at 11am on a weekday, i was thinking to myself why?? then it turned out this idiot on an eBike riding on the right lane, and everybody had to actually change lanes, so they could pass his electroslowass carefully.. like really?? GTFO

end rant/

 

[Baggsy]

It might be different if you got target fixated or had plenty of time to stop, but couldn't.

Do they do splits of the liability percentage here as in the U.S. for awards?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Pedestrians have obligations, just as drivers do. Simply leaping out into traffic, and thinking that they have right-of-way, doesn't float. Quite frankly, given the sort of behaviour I see from pedestrians in the downtown core, I'm surprised that our pedestrian death rate isn't ten times higher. For example try driving past the Irish Embassy Pub, on Yonge, on St. Patrick's day sometime.

If someone steps out from an obscured area, and into a live traffic lane without first looking, then you are extremely unlikely to be found at fault. The only way I can see it happening would be if there was also an active pedestrian crossing signal, as at a crosswalk, and you ignored it.

It might be different if you got target fixated or had plenty of time to stop, but couldn't.

Do they do splits of the liability percentage here as in the U.S. for awards?

Yes, for both fault for purposes of insurance, and in civil cases.

 

[Barnhartp]

this very same thing happened to me a year ago, Some guy was running between cars across 4 lanes and by the time I saw him he was looking up the road at the car that nearly missed him and I was already into a skid, nailing him and being thrown from my bike, First road rash and hopfully the last, messed me up pretty good, the cops drove me home from the hospital and as the passenger cop was writing my report for me the driver cop said, " and just so you know, he's getting charged". ^%$er might want to use a cross walk next time.

 

[Baggsy]

Yes, for both fault for purposes of insurance, and in civil cases.

So, if a lawsuit was non trivial and for an amount much greater than your insurance would cover, you would want to get the best attorney you could find to represent your interests, rather than those of said insurance company.

 

[caboose56]

Thats a tough one. If the person walked away from it that's one thing, but to go after a modest estate after you were involved in their death, even if not culpable...I dont know, I guess it depends on the situation but thats pretty cold. Reminds me of China sending a bill for the victims of Tiananmen Square for the bullets that were used to kill protesters. A bit of a stretch sure, but the impact on the family would be similar.

It sucks they died but ultimately their thoughtlessness damaged your stuff.

Why should I fork over the cash myself if someone else did something stupid and got themselves killed by stepping out in front of me while I'm driving down the road?

 

[Icbones]

Some people are just plain stupid. That is why Home Depot uses a flag man in front of fork lifts going down isle ways to stop stupid people from walking in front of the fork lift. That is why some cagers will pull out in front of bikes even with eye contact being made. I work at a hospital and every once in a while someone will walk out in front of me while pushing a 500+ pound of portable xray machine down the hallway. Some people think they are immune to the laws of physics.

 

[unL33T]

those things are road ILLIGAL!

Quite legal actually. Still annoying how they are ridden though.

I see a guy when I'm leaving work booking it down the sidewalk on a mountain bike with a 50cc engine mounted to it. Not legal. Although he was riding out of traffic which kept me happy.