Crossing Where No Crosswalk
Out of the nearly 5,000 annually-reported fatalities related to pedestrian accidents, thousands of pedestrians suffered fatal injuries as the result of being forced to cross the roadway outside of a marked crosswalk. The pedestrian may simply have elected to cross the roadway outside the crosswalk on their own out of convenience or necessity, or due to some obstacle, or otherwise exigent circumstances. While pedestrians are legally required to cross within marked crosswalks whenever possible, the duty to exercise due care in order to avoid a collision remains with the motorist who has an obligation to alert the pedestrian by sounding the horn when necessary. As such, motorists can be found negligent for failing to yield to pedestrians crossing in an area without crosswalks.New Hampshire’s Laws Concerning Yielding to a Pedestrian Crossing Outside a Crosswalk
Between two adjacent intersections with operable traffic control devices, pedestrians must cross within a marked crosswalk. They are also proscribed from abruptly crossing into the path of a motorist who has no opportunity to yield. On the other hand, New Hampshire law also sets out a due care requirement, which states that all operators of motor vehicles shall exercise due care in order to avoid colliding with a pedestrian, and should sound a warning horn if necessary. Additionally, motorists are expected to exercise due caution whenever a child pedestrian, any incapacitated, or intoxicated adult, is happened upon. Further, a visually impaired pedestrian carrying a cane, or using a service animal is also deserving of the due care mandate.Establishing Negligence When a Pedestrian is Hit Crossing Outside the Crosswalk
Despite the pedestrian being expected to yield the right-of-way to traffic when crossing outside a of a marked crosswalk, the duty of reasonable care regarding the motorist to avoid a collision with a pedestrian remains. As such, if a pedestrian crosses a roadway that does not have a crosswalk, and is struck by a motor vehicle as a result, the onus regarding negligence may still remain with the motorist.
Our firm has successfully resolved numerous cases where there was a dispute whether a motorist was exercising due care when he/she hit our client as our client was attempting to cross a road. In a recent case, despite the fact that the accident occurred at night and our client was wearing mostly dark clothing, our expert accident reconstruction consultant took a car with the same make, model, and year as the defendant motorist’s vehicle to the accident scene at night (with the same amount of moonlight, no less) and was able to record the exact distances that a driver exercising reasonable care would have been able to have observed our client in the road. From these measurements, he was able to calculate how much time the driver would have had to see and avoid our client had he been paying attention to the road. With this evidence, as well as other evidence we had compiled, we were able to show that the driver had ample time to see our client in the road and avoid the collision. The motorist’s insurance carrier subsequently reversed its denial of the claim and we were able to successfully resolve the claim for our client.Peter Thompson & Associates: Tackling Even the Most Complex Pedestrian Accident Cases
If you have been injured while crossing a New Hampshire roadway, the lawyers at Peter Thompson & Associates are fully prepared to obtain maximum legal remedy on your behalf by providing the zealous, experienced, and intuitive representation that you fully deserve.