Accordingly, the mere fact that a pedestrian is in the roadway alone does not give rise to the pedestrian’s negligence.Ī defendant will often argue that a pedestrian who crosses against a don’t walk sign even when the light is green in his direction has violated the statute requiring him to obey a pedestrian traffic control. Generally, a pedestrian does have a right to cross the roadway when a crosswalk is not readily available. In order to do so, the attorney should initially explore the statutes related to the right of the pedestrian to cross the roadway at the location where it was traversed. First, an attorney must thoroughly analyze whether or not the crossing was truly improper. There are a variety of manners in which this defense can be defeated, depending upon the facts of your particular case. This is due to the fact that contributory negligence focuses on the objective reasonableness of the pedestrian’s conduct. However, contributory negligence is an extremely strong defense in a pedestrian case in which the pedestrian has entered the roadway at a location other than a crosswalk. (Trial court erred in giving jury instructions on assumption of risk). District of Columbia, 955 Ap.2d 187 (D.C. However, assumption of the risk is seldom an appropriate defense in a pedestrian accident because the pedestrian must have knowledge of the very specific risk he or she is assuming and then voluntarily chose to assume it.
Generally, a defendant will argue that a pedestrian was contributorily negligent and/or assumed the risk by entering the roadway. One of the strongest defenses in a pedestrian accident case is that the pedestrian crossed the roadway improperly.
#PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HOW TO#
Improper Crossing Situations and How to Fight the Defense
0 kommentar(er)
