Free Case Evaluation
Let's See If You Have a Case...
Drivers Owe Pedestrians Due Care in Every California Crosswalk and Outside One
In California, a driver must yield to a pedestrian in any marked crosswalk and in the unmarked crosswalk that exists at nearly every intersection.
A pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk must yield to traffic close enough to be an immediate hazard.
Even then, the driver still owes the pedestrian due care.
Under pure comparative fault, a pedestrian who shares the blame recovers a reduced amount rather than nothing.
California recorded 1,090 pedestrian deaths in 2024, more than any other state.
If a driver hit you and the insurer is already saying you stepped out without looking, call (888) 713-6653 to talk through how fault is decided.
The Driver's Duty to Yield in Crosswalks Under Vehicle Code § 21950
Section 21950(a) says a driver "shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection."[1] An unmarked crosswalk is the stretch of road where the sidewalk lines would continue across an intersection, painted or not, so the duty applies at the quiet residential corner as much as at a signalized one.
The statute puts duties on both sides. Under subdivision (b), a pedestrian may not "suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." Under subdivision (c), the driver approaching a crosswalk must "exercise all due care" and slow down or take other action to protect the pedestrian.
- A turning driver who looks left for traffic and never right for the person in the crosswalk
- A driver passing a stopped car in the next lane without asking why it stopped
- A driver rolling through a right turn on red across a crosswalk with a walk signal
These are the crashes where the right of way is clearest, and where the insurer's argument usually shifts from who had it to whether you were visible.
Crossing Outside a Crosswalk and the Driver's Continuing Duty Under § 21954
A pedestrian crossing anywhere other than a crosswalk "shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard," under Vehicle Code § 21954(a). Subdivision (b) then adds that this "shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway."
Crossing mid-block does not end a claim. A driver who was speeding, looking at a phone, or driving without headlights at dusk can be found mostly or entirely at fault for hitting someone outside a crosswalk, because the duty of care never switched off.
Section 21955 adds one firmer rule: between two adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals, pedestrians may cross only in a crosswalk. A crossing there can count against the pedestrian in the fault split, while the driver's own care is still measured.
For a pedestrian hit mid-block, the case usually turns on the driver's speed, sight lines, and attention in the seconds before impact, all of which can be reconstructed.
Six California Pedestrian Rules and What Each Means for Fault
Each of these rules can be used to argue fault in a civil claim. Under Evidence Code § 669, violating a safety statute creates a presumption of negligence when the violation caused the kind of injury the law was meant to prevent, to the kind of person it was meant to protect.[2]
| Rule | What it requires | How it plays in a claim |
|---|---|---|
| Veh. Code § 21950 | Drivers yield in marked and unmarked crosswalks and use all due care | The strongest liability rule for a pedestrian hit in a crosswalk |
| Veh. Code § 21954 | Outside a crosswalk, the pedestrian yields to vehicles that are an immediate hazard | Can reduce the pedestrian's share, but the driver's duty of care continues |
| Veh. Code § 21955 | Between adjacent signalized intersections, cross only in a crosswalk | A mid-block crossing there can be weighed against the pedestrian |
| AB 2147 (2023) | No police stop for these pedestrian violations unless there was an immediate danger of collision | Changes ticketing, while the duties of care stay in place |
| Veh. Code § 22500(n), AB 413 | No stopping or parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk on the approach side | A vehicle parked in that zone can be part of the fault picture |
| Evid. Code § 669 | A safety-statute violation presumes negligence | Turns a driver's Vehicle Code violation into a rebuttable presumption |
A child can rebut the same presumption by showing the care expected of a child that age, which matters when a young pedestrian is accused of darting out.
AB 2147, Jaywalking Stops, and the Civil Duty of Care Since 2023
Since January 1, 2023, AB 2147 has barred police from stopping a pedestrian for crossing mid-block, against a signal, or outside a crosswalk "unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision."[3] The bill is often called the Freedom to Walk Act, though that name does not appear in its text.
The law changed enforcement. It did not repeal § 21950, § 21954, or § 21955, and both the pedestrian's and the driver's duties of care are where they were. An insurer can still argue that a pedestrian who crossed against the signal shares fault for a crash.
AB 2147 does undercut one version of that argument. A pedestrian who crossed when no car was close enough to be a danger was doing what the Legislature decided should not even draw a ticket, so the crossing alone says little about fault when a speeding driver arrived later.
The question in a jaywalking case is always the immediate-danger moment, meaning where the car was and how fast it was moving when you stepped off the curb.
Daylighting Under AB 413 and the Parked Vehicle That Blocked the View
A van or truck parked at the corner hides a pedestrian until the last second, from the driver and the pedestrian alike. AB 413 added Vehicle Code § 22500(n), which bars stopping or parking "within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk," or within 15 feet where the curb has been extended. Cities may set a different distance by ordinance.
The rule took effect January 1, 2024, with citations allowed only at painted or signed curbs during that year. Since January 1, 2025, it can be ticketed at any crosswalk, marked or not.
In a claim, a vehicle parked in that zone is a statutory violation that bears on fault, since the rule exists to keep people at the curb visible. It does not excuse the moving driver, who still had to approach the crosswalk with due care, but it can add a defendant and an insurance policy to the case.
Photographs of where every vehicle sat at the corner, taken before they move, are the evidence this rule depends on.
Pure Comparative Fault in a Pedestrian Case, With the Numbers
Suppose a jury finds a pedestrian's losses are $400,000 and assigns 20 percent of the fault to the pedestrian for crossing mid-block between two signalized intersections, and 80 percent to the driver for speeding. The pedestrian recovers $320,000. California has no cutoff, so a pedestrian found 60 percent at fault would still recover $160,000.
Add a second defendant, such as the owner of a box truck parked inside the daylighting zone, and Proposition 51 changes how the award is collected. Each defendant can be made to pay the full economic losses, such as medical bills and lost wages, but only its own percentage of the non-economic damages for pain and suffering.
The rules behind both steps are set out on our page explaining how California divides fault among several parties. Every percentage point the insurer moves onto the pedestrian comes straight off the recovery, which is why the fault split is usually the first fight in a pedestrian claim.
Signal Timing, Video, and Evidence Code § 669 in a Right-of-Way Dispute
Right-of-way disputes are won with physical evidence, because the driver and the pedestrian often remember the light differently and both believe it.
- Signal timing charts from the city or Caltrans show when the walk signal and the countdown were running
- Video from businesses, buses, doorbells, and the driver's own dashcam fixes positions and speed
- Event data from the car's airbag control module records speed and braking in the seconds before impact
- The scene itself, including skid marks, the point of rest, and lighting at that hour, supports a reconstruction
Proof that the driver broke a Vehicle Code rule shifts the burden under § 669, and the driver then has to show a reasonable excuse. Our national page on claims after being hit in a crosswalk covers the evidence that tends to matter most.
Business cameras often record over themselves within days, so requests for footage go out first.
When the Driver's Insurer Says You Were Jaywalking in California
The jaywalking accusation tends to come early, often in the first call from the driver's adjuster, and it is built to lower your expectations before anyone has looked at the evidence.
Under the rules above, it is an argument about percentages. A pedestrian who crossed mid-block can still recover most of the loss when the driver was speeding, distracted, or had a clear view and did not slow down. The police report's narrative is not the final word on fault either, and a statement you give the adjuster about where you were looking can be used to raise your share.
The driver's insurer is not the only source of payment. Your own auto policy's uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage protects you as a pedestrian, which matters when the driver had a minimum policy or drove away, as our page on uninsured motorist coverage after a California hit-and-run explains.
A claim against the driver must be filed within two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, and a claim involving a city crosswalk or signal needs a written government claim within six months.