Auto-pedestrian accidents are extremely dangerous and often deadly. Even at relatively low speeds, a car can knock a pedestrian down and cause severe injury or death.
Drivers have a duty of care to avoid hitting pedestrians, and if they breach this duty and injure someone, they can be held liable for the injured person’s damages through a personal injury claim. These damages can include medical bills, lost wages, rehabilitation costs, pain and suffering and more.
That said, the legal issues in auto-pedestrian accidents can be complex. In some cases, an injured pedestrian can be found partly at fault for their own injuries, and this can jeopardize their recovery in a personal injury claim.
Comparative negligence
It’s important to remember that pedestrians also have a duty of care — they have a duty to act reasonably to protect their own safety. A pedestrian breaches this duty when they jaywalk or otherwise act unsafely while crossing the road.
When a pedestrian breaches this duty and is injured as a result, they are said to have contributed fault to the accident. Illinois deals with this type of situation through a legal model known as comparative negligence.
Under the state’s comparative negligence law, an Illinois court would examine the evidence and assign a percentage of fault to each party. So long as one party’s contribution of fault is no more than 50%, they can hold the other party liable for their damages. However, their recovery must be reduced in proportion to their share of fault.
An illustration
To illustrate how Illinois’ comparative negligence law might work in an auto-pedestrian accident, imagine an accident involving Adam and Zelda. Adam is driving near Bicentennial Park when his car strikes Zelda.
Zelda is injured. She files suit against Adam, seeking $100,000 in damages, including her medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.
During the trial, the court learns that the accident happened after Zelda negligently failed to notice a “Don’t Walk” sign at a crosswalk and walked into the street in front of Adam’s car. Because of this, the court decides that Zelda bears some fault for the accident in which she was injured. However, it also finds that, if Adam had been exercising proper care, he would have seen Zelda in time to apply his brakes and avoid the collision.
Ultimately, the court decides that Adam was 60% at fault and Zelda was 40% at fault.
Because Zelda’s share of fault was no more than 50%, she can hold Adam liable. However, her compensation must be reduced by 40%, because that is her share of fault. This means she can recover only $60,000.