Pedestrian Knockdown Attorney

Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

“What Do I Need To Know About Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits?”

With an incredible number of vehicles traversing our roads and streets, California isn't always the safest place to be a pedestrian. Most people on foot are unprepared to be struck by a moving car, truck, or another vehicle. Frequent causes of injury to pedestrians include: Collisions with bicyclists, scooters, and motorcycles; being struck by vehicles that don't yield; unsafe road conditions; and accidents with other pedestrians. If you are knocked down while walking, there is a good chance that you'll sustain serious injury. You may even need money to compensate you for your medical bills and lost earnings. If so, it is especially important that you explore filing a lawsuit after being knocked down in a pedestrian accident.

The Kann California Law Group now offers pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuit representation. Unlike criminal law, which is concerned primarily with incarceration, pedestrian accident law focuses on compensating for injuries and remunerating for lost earnings. Below you'll find an overview on pedestrian accident knockdown claims, facts about negligence in pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuits, information on causes of pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuits, help on the frequency and severity of pedestrian knockdown accidents, information about what you should do after you've been in a pedestrian accident, facts about liability for conditions leading to pedestrian knockdown injuries, a statement about damage awards available in pedestrian knockdown accident lawsuits, facts about how partial fault affects pedestrian knockdown accident lawsuits, information on wrongful death liability in pedestrian knockdown accident lawsuits and facts about pedestrian injuries in California.

Please feel free to contact the Kann California Law Group in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County with further questions. Your call goes directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.

California Pedestrian Knockdown Claims: Overview

If you're injured in a pedestrian accident, there are multiple means available for holding liable the responsible person or party. The first available to you is the negligence action. Pedestrians are often injured by careless (or reckless) acts. This is known as negligence. The negligence action allows pedestrians injured by negligent persons to sue for damages like medical costs, lost wages, lost earnings and compensation for pain and suffering.

Additionally, California law requires that people and institutions owning property maintain their property in a condition that is reasonably safe. This is known as “premises liability.” The law includes both asphalt and pavement and applies to both private and public property. Property owners must act as soon as is reasonably possible to correct dangerous conditions. If a property owner fails to do so, either negligently or willfully, the property owner may be liable for injuries caused by the property.

Negligence in Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

As stated above, negligence actions allow pedestrians injured by negligent persons to sue for damages like medical costs, lost wages, lost earnings and compensation for pain and suffering. Thus, if you have been injured owing to the carelessness or reckless behavior of someone else, California law allows you to sue because of the other party's negligence. Both careless and reckless acts can result in pedestrian knockdown accidents. Both are considered negligence, which, in turn, proves the other party is at least partially at fault in pedestrian knockdown accident lawsuits.

Proving liability in a pedestrian knockdown lawsuit requires establishing two legal facts:

1. The Standard of Care

The defendant must be negligent if the defendant is to be liable under California law. This requires violating the legal standard of care. The standard of care states, generally, that negligence is “the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.” Specifically, “[a] person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is [also] negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.”[1]

Therefore, the standard of care requires that motorists and others act with due and cautious regard for pedestrians. The failure to proceed in a manner consistent with the standard of due care makes a person or institution negligent.

1. The Basic Elements of Liability in a Negligence Suit

Proving negligence in pedestrian knockdown lawsuits also requires demonstrating the existence of the basic elements of liability in a negligence suit. These are:

• Negligence: The defendant was negligent; AND,
• Harm: The plaintiff was harmed; AND,
• Substantial Factor: The defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm.

Note: The “substantial factor” prong of the pleading means your claim must prove the defendant's breach caused harm to you. Simply put, the defendant had to have caused actual injury.

• Negligence Per Se

It's also possible to demonstrate another's negligence by showing that that person or institution violated a law by getting into a knockdown accident with you. This is known as “negligence per se.” To prove it, your claim must show that:

• Violation: The defendant violated a statute, regulation, or ordinance; AND
• Substantial Factor: The violation was a substantial factor in bringing about your harm.

Note: If these elements are established, the judge or jury must find the defendant was negligent

unless it's also found that the violation was excused.

Example: Defendant Debora needs to get to work in a matter of minutes or she'll be late and get fired. Panicked, she approaches a four-way intersection in her Ford Explorer and turns without looking. She strikes Plaintiff Penelope, a pedestrian lawfully using the crosswalk, and knocks Penelope to the pavement. Penelope, who's injured, sues her, but instead of proving Debora was negligent through the ordinary standard of care, Penelope introduces California Vehicle Code Section 21709, prohibiting driving through a safety zone.[2] This, she claims, establishes that Debora was under a duty to her. Is Penelope correct about the law?

Conclusion: Debora drove through a crosswalk – a form of pedestrian safety zone – while it was lawfully in use by Penelope. Section 21709 of the Vehicle Code prohibits just this conduct. Even though the Code section is enforceable through criminal penalty, the fact that Debora violated it – and the fact that Penelope, a pedestrian, was clearly one of the persons meant to be protected by the statute – establishes that Debora had a per se duty to Penelope at the time of the accident. Penelope, therefore, is correct is about the Code section.

Causes of Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

There are a variety of causes frequently associated with pedestrian accident lawsuits. Note that, while cars and trucks are often involved, motor vehicles are not the sole cause of pedestrian accidents. Your lawsuit could originate with any number of situations, like: Bicycles on the sidewalk; runners using the sidewalk; skateboarders in pedestrian lanes; uncontrolled pets; other pedestrians; and crowded streets. It may be helpful to examine these causes in more detail.

1. Bicyclists, Runners, Skateboarders and Other Pedestrians

As with drivers who are operating vehicles, all others have a duty of care when riding or walking the streets. Pedestrians are hurt regularly by people who ride suddenly into walking lanes, or who dart unexpectedly into their paths, or who ride carelessly into collisions. If you're hurt by the negligence of such a bicyclist, you may have a claim against that person to account for the cost of your injuries.

As with suing a driver for negligence, proving liability requires establishing two sets of facts:

1. The Standard of Care

The defendant must be negligent if the defendant is to be liable under California law. This requires violating the legal standard of care. The standard of care states, generally, that negligence is “the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.” Specifically, “[a] person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is [also] negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.”[3]

The standard of care requires that people act with regard for bicyclists, drivers – and, of course, pedestrians. The failure to act with due care makes them liable for injuries caused by their negligence.

1. The Basic Elements of Liability in a Negligence Suit

Proving negligence in a pedestrian knockdown lawsuit also requires demonstrating the existence of the basic elements of liability in a negligence suit. These are:

• Negligence: The defendant was negligent; AND,
• Harm: The plaintiff was harmed; AND,
• Substantial Factor: The defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm.

Note: The “substantial factor” prong of the pleading means your claim must prove the    defendant's breach caused your injuries. The bicyclist had to have produced actual injury.

Example: Plaintiff Patricia has a sore leg. She is uncertain exactly how she injured it. After Defendant Dominica strikes a walking Patricia while Dominica is riding her bicycle, however, Patricia sues Dominica for negligence, claiming that Dominica hurt the leg. Is Dominica liable for Patricia's injuries on these facts?

Conclusion: Patricia, as the facts make clear, had an injured leg before being struck by Dominica. Thus Patricia can't say for certain if she was actually injured by Dominica – or, more appropriately, she can't say if Dominica was a “substantial factor” in the injury she alleges. Dominica might have had nothing to do with the harm. Therefore, on these facts, Dominica is not liable for Patricia's injuries.

1. Uncontrolled Pets

In California, people “who own, keep, or control animals with unusually dangerous natures or tendencies can be held responsible for the harm that their animals cause to others, no matter how carefully they guard or restrain their animals.”[4] Thus, liability for failing to control a dangerous pet – even if it is a domestic animal - is possible for a pet owner whose pet knocks down a pedestrian if:

• Kept…/Animal: The defendant owned, kept, or controlled a type of animal; AND,
• Unusually Dangerous: The animal had an unusually dangerous nature or tendency; AND,
• Knew or Should Have Known: The defendant knew or should have known the animal had this nature or tendency before someone was injured; AND,
• Harm: That the plaintiff was harmed; AND,
• Substantial Factor: The animal's unusually dangerous nature or tendency was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm.

Note: If these elements are established, the defendant will be held in strict liability[5]  for the acts of the animal. No further faultfinding will be required.

Example: Defendant Darian has a golden retriever,[6] Terry, who is normally kept inside her house. However, concerned that Terry isn't getting enough exercise, Darian takes Terry for a walk. They soon encounter Plaintiff Porter, a jogger. Terry attacks Porter without hesitation and knocks him down. Porter is badly hurt. He sues Darian, claiming that she is strictly liable for the injuries caused by her dog. Darian insists that Terry's breed is docile, he has always been loving, and he has never hurt anyone. Thus, Darian says, she can't be liable for Porter's injury. Should she have to pay him?

Conclusion: Darian owned a type of animal which was a substantial factor in causing harm to Porter. These are elements of the cause of action. However, golden retrievers are a common dog breed known for an extremely gentle disposition. (One webpage states that “[a]ny form of unprovoked aggression or hostility towards either people, dogs or other animals, whether in the show ring or community, is considered unacceptable in a Golden Retriever and is not in keeping with the character of the breed[.]”[7]) Thus, Darian didn't keep a dog with a violent nature. That Terry had never attacked anyone, furthermore, means Darian had no reason to know her dog   had any disposition towards hurting anyone. If even one element of a cause of action is missing, a judge or jury in this country must find for the defendant. Darian, therefore, should not have to pay Porter. He cannot establish that Debora knew or should've known her dog posed a danger.

Pedestrian Knockdown Accidents: Frequency and Severity

While all pedestrians assume some risk, their injuries, depending on a number of factors, differ both in terms of frequency and severity. Since pedestrian accidents often involve persons unprepared to be knocked to the pavement or concrete, consequent injuries can be severe. If you've been in a pedestrian knockdown accident, it should not be a surprise to suffer any of the following: Lacerations (cuts); bruises; head, neck or spinal injury; broken bones; neural injury; internal damage; or extensive bleeding.

However, some persons are likelier than others to suffer extensive damage in a pedestrian knockdown accident. Recent statistics demonstrate that people are at greater risk to be hurt while walking based on factors as diverse as: Age (children and old older adults are likelier to be in knockdown accidents than younger and middle-aged adults); whether alcohol was involved; and the area of the accident (that is, accidents were likelier in urban areas and in areas without intersections).[8]

What You Should Do After Getting into a Pedestrian Knockdown Accident

As a Californian, you have the right to sue for damages if you've been hurt in an accident while walking. But there are several steps you should take before going to court. Among these are:

1. Get Medical Attention

If you've been in a pedestrian knockdown accident, put your wellbeing first. Call emergency services at the scene, if you require assistance, or have someone else contact a hospital on your behalf. But, if you are hurt, the sort of injury you're likely to sustain in a knockdown accident – injury involving your head or neck – is serious. Make certain a physician evaluates you, whether you feel pain at the scene of the accident or sometime after. You should not ignore your injuries. Get medical attention.

1. Make No Admissions of Fault

This is one of the best ways of protecting yourself from being liable for another person's damages in a pedestrian knockdown accident. It's acceptable to express sympathy; it's not in your interest to apologize or admit any wrongdoing. What you say, and the circumstances under which you say it, can be admissible in court. Allow your attorney to prove your case. Make no admissions of fault.

• Gather Your Own Information

There's quite a bit of which you should be aware after an accident. If you have a cell phone or some other means of recordkeeping, record facts about any vehicles involved in the accident. Make certain that you get details (year, make, model, Vehicle Identification Number, and color) and other information which will be indispensable in dealing with your, and the other person's, insurance companies. Names and contact information should, similarly, be recorded in detail. This includes witnesses. And feel free to add documentation of your own. This includes photographing the circumstances surrounding the accident and talking to witnesses. Gather your own information.

Liability for Conditions Leading to Pedestrian Knockdown Injuries

In California, the law establishes that property owners are under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain conditions on their property in order to prevent foreseeable harms to persons who encounter that property. The failure to do so can make a property owner liable for injuries generated by those conditions. This is known as “premises liability.” This duty applies even to cities in maintaining walkways. Premises liability becomes especially important whenever a city has prior knowledge of a problem with a pedestrian zone and fails to address an issue, leading to an accident.

Dangerous conditions frequently include damaged pavement and the failure to warn of known hazards. Thus, negligent maintenance of premises can lead to pedestrian knockdown accidents, which, in turn, leads to lawsuits.

1. Proving Liability in Premises Liability Lawsuits

Suing successfully in premises liability lawsuits requires proving that:

• Defendant…/Property: The defendant owned, leased, occupied or controlled the property at issue; AND,
• Negligence: The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property; AND,
• Harm: You were harmed;[9] AND,
• Substantial Factor: The defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in causing your harm.

1. Proving Negligence in Premises Liability Lawsuits

 

Proving negligence in premises liability lawsuits requires demonstrating the existence of the basic elements of negligence in maintenance of property. These are:

• Condition…/Unreasonable Risk: A condition on the property created an unreasonable risk of harm; AND,
• Knowledge: The defendant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about the condition;[10] AND,
• Failure of Duty: The defendant failed to repair the condition, protect against harm from the condition, or to give adequate warning of the condition.

Example: Defendant Department is a division of City. It's responsible for maintaining roadways and paths. Every six months, as required by law, Department's employees survey the roads and pathways for which City is responsible and make notes about those which must be repaired. Then City repairs them. When Plaintiff Pauline is injured by a piece of public sidewalk pavement that subsides more than two months after Department finishes a road survey, however, causing her to fall onto her face after she trips on the adjacent piece of sidewalk, Pauline sues, claiming Department was negligent in maintaining the sidewalk. Department defends itself by showing that its employees did not see the dangerous condition in their previous survey, and that Department would not have learned of the situation until the next scheduled survey unless it had been warned about the pavement. Should Department have to pay Pauline's damages?

Conclusion: Department was responsible for public sidewalk which, after a subsidence, created an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians like Pauline. These are two of the elements of the cause of action. However, Department was not under an obligation to survey the roads for dangerous conditions except every six months, and compliance with this duty – which was established by law – would establish prima facie[11] evidence of reasonable care for the road and path conditions. Thus, as it points out correctly in its defense, Department would have had no reason to know of the condition that injured Pauline unless it had been warned of the situation. The facts make no mention of such as occurrence. Therefore, given that Department neither knew of the condition nor should've known of the potential harm, Department should not have to pay damages to Pauline.

Damages Available in Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

The following are awards available to compensate you for injuries in pedestrian knockdown lawsuits.

• Medical Costs: The award may include the cost of long-term hospital care, the expenses associated with physical or occupational therapy, and prescription/drug costs, among other provisions.
• Loss of Earnings: An award creating compensation for lost wages because a pedestrian accident knockdown caused you to miss work.
• Loss of Earning Capacity: An award compensating you for the loss of the ability to earn money because of injury suffered in a pedestrian accident knockdown.
• Pain and Suffering Compensation: Amounts meant to compensate you for “[p]ast and future physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation and/or emotional distress”[12] suffered after a pedestrian accident knockdown.
• Punitive Damages: Damages (over and above basic compensation awards) assessed to punish egregious behavior and/or extreme indifference.

Note: This list is not exhaustive. If it isn't included here, contact the Kann California Law Group with your specific concern. We're certain we can fashion an award that'll adequately compensate you for injuries that you suffered in a pedestrian knockdown.

How Partial Fault Affects Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

California allows parties who injured each other owing to negligence to collect awards from each other based on percentage of fault. You needn't be entirely without fault to recover money for your injuries in this state, therefore, unlike jurisdictions which use the “contributory negligence” system.[13] Thus your own negligence will not prevent you from suing a negligent party for your injuries. When negligent persons injure each other, however, their respective awards may be reduced because the state allows finding that they were comparatively negligent.[14] This legal doctrine is known as “comparative fault.”[15]

Example: Defendant Davida hits Plaintiff Pieter with her motorcycle. She knocks him to the pavement. He suffers catastrophic injuries to his brain. Pieter later sues Davida for $2 million. Davida also goes to the hospital after the accident, however, and incurs $200,000 in bills. She crossclaims (countersues) for this amount. The jury decides that Davida was 100% liable. She's ordered to pay $2 million. But Davida insists that a separate finding must be entered to determine how much liability Pieter has for her costs. Pieter's lawyer disagrees and says that Davida must pay for her own bills. Which one of them is correct?

Conclusion: There is always some set of facts in controversy in a negligence action. In this case, the facts surrounding a single accident have been taken to court. Consistent with the situation, the jury has made a single finding about liability - namely, that Davida was entirely liable for Pieter's injuries. Had the jury decided that Pieter was responsible for any percentage of Davida's injuries, his award would be offset by that amount. But the jury's division of liability applies for all claims arising from the accident, no matter who files them. Thus, Pieter's lawyer is correct. No additional division of fault is required. Davida must pay a total of $2.2 million – that is, $2 million to Pieter, and $200,000 for her own medical expenses.

Wrongful Death Compensation in Pedestrian Knockdown Lawsuits

California permits filing a Wrongful Death lawsuit if anyone has been the victim of wrongdoing leading to death. In the event the plaintiff wins the suit, damages available include: 1) Lost income the victim would have earned; 2) funeral and burial expenses; and, 3) compensation for the loss of the victim's support and companionship. For this reason, Wrongful Death lawsuits bear similarities to suits based on Loss of Consortium[16] (losing enjoyment of a living person's companionship, support, and/or sexual intimacy).[17]

Example: Defendant Damian hits Victim Valentina with his Sport Utility Vehicle while she's walking along a city street. She dies soon after. Damian admits fault. He later agrees to pay Plaintiff Patrick, Valentina's eldest son, for five years' worth of lost income. He also agrees to pay all the funeral and burial expenses. But Damian balks at paying anything for the loss of Valentina's companionship. He says, “Missing your mother after you lose her is just a sad part of life. The law wouldn't make me pay for it.” Is he correct?  

Conclusion: Damian has acknowledged all the legal elements of liability for a wrongful death and has agreed to pay most of the damages associated with his act. But he doesn't understand that Patrick can indeed sue for the loss of his mother's companionship. California law and state public policy favor family relations in many ways. This includes having the right to sue for the loss of a family member's company. Damian, therefore, is incorrect. He should compensate Patrick for the loss of Valentina's companionship. 

Additionally, California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § (Section) 377.60[18] makes it possible for a person's estate to sue on behalf of the victim of another person's wrongful conduct. These actions are known as “survival actions.” Survival suits are brought on behalf of the victim's estate. This is different from the ordinary legal arrangement, wherein the victim's heirs or successors in interest[19] are empowered to bring suit to compensate themselves for their own losses. These suits are also the only form of Wrongful Death theory permitting the award of punitive damages, with the exception of a very limited category involving Felony homicide which permits heirs to recover money. 

Pedestrian Injuries in California: Statistics

Recent statistics published by the California Department of Public Health reveal that there were more than 225,000 total pedestrian injuries in a single year, while a recent pedestrian fatality rate was 2.0 fatal pedestrian accidents per 100,000 California residents.[20] Not surprisingly, California also had the highest total of fatal pedestrian accidents in the United States. Nearly 700 pedestrians were killed in one year in California, representing approximately 15% of the nationwide total of 4,700 pedestrian deaths.[21]

Los Angeles was second only to New York City in terms of its total number of fatal pedestrian accidents. One study revealed eighty-five pedestrian deaths in a single year in Los Angeles. Over 20% of those killed in traffic accidents between 2007 and 2013 were pedestrians, additionally, while 29% of those killed in traffic accidents over that period were pedestrians fourteen and younger. Meanwhile, fully 33% of pedestrian accident deaths in that same time involved adults aged sixty-five years or older.[22]

Contact the Kann California Law Group

The State of California regards pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuits as serious concerns. If you have a pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuit, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated attorney as soon as possible. Your rights and livelihood may be at stake.

Remember, a professional pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuit attorney may be able to:

• Negotiate an award;
• Win your case at trial;
• Or get other legal relief for you, as appropriate.

The attorneys at the Kann California Law Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's personal injury justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities.

If you or someone you know is suing in a pedestrian accident knockdown lawsuit, our attorneys will analyze the facts of the case and plan a strategy that will help to obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Law Group today to schedule a free and confidential consultation.

References

[1] See California Civil Jury Instructions 401 (CACI) (2017).

[2] See California Vehicle Code § (Section) 21709.

[3] See Endnote 1.

[4] See California Civil Jury Instructions 462 (CACI) (2017).

[5] See “Strict Liability” at USLegal.com.

[6] See “Golden Retriever” at Wikipedia.org.

[7] See above.

[8] See “Pedestrian Injuries: Emergency Care Considerations,” February 8, 2007, by Bharath Chakravarthy, MD, Shahram Lotfipour, MD, MPH, and Federico E. Vaca, MD, MPH. US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

 

[9] “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.” See California Civil Code (CIV) §1714 (a).

[10] “In determining whether the defendant should have known of the condition that created the risk of harm, [jurors] must decide whether, under all the circumstances, the condition was of such a nature and existed long enough that the defendant had sufficient time to discover it and, using reasonable care: [¶] 1. Repair the condition; or [¶] 2. Protect against harm from the condition; or [¶] 3. Adequately warn of the condition.” See California Civil Jury Instructions 1011 (CACI) (2017).

[11] See “Prima Facie Law and Legal Definition,” USLegal.com.

[12] See California Civil Jury Instructions 3905A (CACI) (2017).

[13] See “Comparative and Contributory Negligence” at Justia.com. 

[14] See Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3rd 804 (1975). (Establishing, inter alia, that comparative negligence should be applied in its ‘pure' form in California.)

[15] See California Civil Jury Instructions 406 (CACI) (2017).

[16] See California Civil Jury Instructions 3920 (CACI) (2017).

[17] Compensation is available separately for the loss of minor children. See California Civil Jury Instructions 3922 (CACI) (2017).

[18] See CCP §377.60 (a).

[19] See CCP §377.11.

[20] See “Traffic Safety Reports: Pedestrian Injuries in California 2007-2013,” June 2017. California Department of Public Health (CDPH), cdhp.ca.gov.

[21] See “Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety,” Governor's Highway Safety Association, ghsa.org.

[22] See Endnote 20.