FAQ

If a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian that's jaywalking, who is at fault?


	Home -> Discussion -> Cycling Gear

Author

Message

MomMom
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: If a cyclist crashes into a pedestrian that's jaywalking, who is at fault?

Suppose a pedestrian chose not to use an available pedestrian crossing. They cross one lane of stationary traffic and look for cars crossing on the opposite side. They see no cars, so they start to cross. A bell rings, and there's shouting, and the pedestrian freezes in place when they realise a cyclist doing 20mph (who is legally on the road, not trying to ride on the sidewalk/pavement) is heading straight for them. The pedestrian stops like a deer in the headlights, and there's an accident.The cyclist, wearing protective gear, escapes relatively unharmed but with high monetary losses from a new front wheel, new helmet, and new sunglasses. The pedestrian has a fractured skull and went to the hospital.Who is at fault? Should there be a lawsuit? Which insurance covers this if it's not on auto insurance - does homeowner's cover cycling accidents?

Nightmare
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject:

Teh cyclist, yo

Mak
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

i think the pedestrian because they didnt use the walk way

Blond&Tall
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

The cyclist. I can't stand cyclist on the road, they belong on sidewalks! You can't see them and you have to merge into the oncoming lane to get around them. Dangerous!

Deiontre W
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject:

remember kids look both ways when crossing the street and RUN LIKE HELL when you're about to get hit by a moving vehicle. but to answer your question the jay walkers at fualt least thats how i think it is.

Donald
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

No matter what happens, a pedestrian always has the right-of-way. The Cyclist is at fault.

tin
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

I think the pedestrian is at fault.....But what are the laws in your state say...

wizbangs
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

The cyclist is at fault because pedestrians have the right of way (even when not in a crosswalk). Bicycles follow the same rules of the road as automobiles.Most states have "no fault" insurance, however, meaning neither of the two would be liable. Each would have to have his own insurance cover the costs.Never the less, presuming the cyclist is found at fault, his homeowner's insurance would not cover it (since it did not happen on the cyclist's property). At best, the pedestrian would get a citation for Jaywalking.(And for the Blond above) most cyclists ride too fast to be on the sidewalks (which is a hazard to pedestrians). They are considered wheeled vehicles (like cars) and if you hit one, it is as if you hit another automobile.

rookie82989
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject:

it would be the cyclist's fault. there is no law about jaywalking anymore. if you are cycling in the road, just like cars, it would be your fault. the pedestrian is able to bring about a lawsuit. it is the same as if a car were to hit them. im pretty sure that there is cycling insurance, i dont think that any other type of insurance would cover something like that. the only other insurance i can think of would be liability insurance..

shalertitan52
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject:

Same as a automobile driver, it's the cyclist fault!!! the injured pedestrian should sue the operator of the bicycle for failing to operate vehicle safely. Not sure what insurance would cover it, but the bicycle operator is in for one hell of a lawsuit

Nick Z
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject:

When there is an accident like this on the road. Then you have to call the police and let the police determine who is at fault and in what proportion.Quite often both parties are at fault in some way. Although one of them may be more to blame than the other. But without a police report. It will all end up in court. And the insurance companies won't pay anything, unless the court makes a clear judgement. You'll probably end up spending a lot more money on lawyers in court than you will ever get from the insurance companies.

Loose Change™¢
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject:

There is a legal concept known as apportionment of fault ,where the judge decides what percentage each party is at fault. In this instance, it would not be 100%/0%. Both the pedestrian and the cyclist have a duty to be aware of their surrounding and pay attention. As a guesstimate, I would say the apportionment of fault is 50/50. It could be 60% pedestrian because he was jaywalking, but usually in situations like this, judges will "split the baby," to be fair.The cyclist can sue the pedestrian for his new front wheel, etc., but the pedestrian's fractured skull will far exceed the amount of property damage. This is a tough call, since any payment, short of voluntary, will have to be adjudicated through the expense of a trial. So, the short answer is both parties were at fault, unless the bicyclist can show that the pedestrian jumped out in front of him and there was no way he could stop. You can see how this goes. What was the pedestrian doing jaywalking? What was the bicyclist doing going so fast that he couldn't stop or avoid the pedestrian in time. Should there be a lawsuit? NO! That will only cost more. Best thing is for each side to make a settlement offer and try to settle this out of court. If Homeowner's insurance will cover it, then it's the insurance company's problem, minus any deductible, of course.Who pays if not the car insurance company? Homeowner's will pay if you have coverage for such. Usually such coverage is under an "Umbrella" policy, not under regular homeonwer's insurance.

silverbullet
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject:

That would depend on local laws. Some jurisdictions grant pedestrians full right of way, meaning they have the right to be completely stupid without any responsibility for the results of their actions. Here in Illinois, I believe the cyclist would not be ticketed or held liable, but I'm not sure if it would be possible to recover damages from the pedestrian.-----Note to blond: The worm is turning. You'll feel a little different about it when there's no gas available for your SUV, and you're too out of breath to yap on the phone and ride your bike at the same time. FWIW, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities on the road as motor vehicles. Get over it.

HandsumDevill
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject:

The pedestrian is at fault, the bike tried to avoid him but couldn't. While pedestrians have "right of way" they are not allowed to jaywalk or dart into the street or walk down the middle of the freeway etc.

DH1
Yahoo User

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject:

Assuming the store is being told factually, the jaywalker is at fault. pedestrian right of way doesn't extend to walking out into traffic azzhats. It extends to pedestrians who are lawfully crossing lanes of traffic and have cleared traffic before stepping into the street.A driver of a car, bus, bike, motorcycle, steamroller will not be found at fault of an unavoidable accident when a pedestrian steps in front of a legally operated vehicle traveling in their lane of traffic. This would be different if the pedestrian was legally crossing at a crossing area, or if the bike was riding unlawfully or recklessly. 20mph in the right hand lane is far from reckless or unlawful.All that being said, nobody is going to buy your new wheel or helmet, as it isn't covered by any typical insurance policy without a specific rider. It would be covered in an auto accident, by the drivers public liability insurance.

	Discussion -> Cycling Gear	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Source: