Does a Pedestrian in a Crosswalk Have the Right of Way?
Yes. The drivers of motor vehicles on Baltimore roadways have a duty to use ordinary care to prevent car accidents and injury to others, and those crossing Maryland streets owe a duty to use ordinary care for their own safety. Crosswalks have some associated special rules. A crosswalk may be marked or “unmarked” [i.e. within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks].
If there is no traffic signal, a driver of a motor vehicle must stop if a pedestrian is in a crosswalk on the half of the roadway where the vehicle is traveling, or, if they are approaching from an adjacent lane on the other half of the roadway. As attorney Eric T. Kirk will tell you, if a traffic control signal that does not contain special ‘walk’ or ‘don’t walk’ commands is operating, then, a driver faced with a circular solid green, must yield to anyone lawfully inside any crosswalk when going straight, right or left.
Baltimore PI Lawyer Tip: A pedestrian in this circumstance is likely “lawfully” in the crosswalk when they begin their crossing facing any green signal other than a turn arrow.
If a traffic control signal that does contain special ‘walk’ or ‘don’t walk’ commands is operating, then, a pedestrian facing a ‘walk’ signal is to be given the right of way by any driver. Pedestrians can assume that operators of vehicles will obey the rules. Obviously, that does not always happen. This isn’t necessarily by design, but often the product of mistake, oversight or neglect. In other words, negligence. The obligation to protect others runs both ways.
Baltimore PI Lawyer Tip: Of course, a pedestrian must always use due care for their own safety, and cannot blindly cross traffic, even with the right of way, without first checking to make sure it is safe.
Maryland is one of the few states adhering to the ancient concept of contributory negligence. In the context of pedestrian v. car accidents, the insurance company lawyer will frequently argue that the pedestrian caused, or contributed, to the accident, in even the most minor fashion, and should be barred from recovery.
How to Beat The Insurance Company Defenses at Trial:
Car-pedestrian cases often turn on right-of-way rules, visibility, and timing. Defendants typically deploy a mix of statutory, factual, and medical defenses. Here are the themes you’ll most often see.
- Contributory negligence (and related doctrines
This is huge in Baltimore and a handful of jurisdictions that still follow pure contributory negligence, any negligent act by the pedestrian that proximately contributes to the collision can bar recovery outright. Expect allegations of mid-block crossing, entering against the signal, leaving a curb suddenly into the path of a close vehicle (“dart-out”), walking outside a crosswalk where one is reasonably available, drunkeness, or failing to keep a proper lookout while wearing headphones or using a phone. The skilled defense lawyer will map these facts to traffic statutes and argue per se negligence where applicable. Plaintiffs will counter with the last clear chance doctrine (narrow and fact-specific), aiming to show the driver still had a feasible opportunity to avoid the collision after any pedestrian lapse.
- Compliance with signals and the “who had the right-of-way” battle.
Those battle hardened trial lawyers hired by the Defense/ Insurance company emphasizes the pedestrian’s duty to obey pedestrian signals and yield outside crosswalks, while portraying the driver as proceeding lawfully with a green light or right-of-way. Expect disputes over signal phase, countdown timers, turning movements, and sight lines (parked cars, buses, pillars). Possibly surveillance and data from connected vehicles.
- Visibility v. lighting v. The Baltimore Pedestrian Accident
At night or in rain/fog, expect arguments about conspicuity: dark clothing, lack of reflective gear, poor street lighting, or the pedestrian emerging from between vehicles. Defense reconstructionists may use heavy terms like headlight throw, stopping distances, and reaction-time literature to claim the pedestrian was not reasonably visible in time to avoid impact.
- Speed, perception-reaction, and stopping distance.
If the defendant is cited, don’t expect their insurance company to give up! Even without a cited speeding violation, defense experts may argue the driver’s speed was reasonable and that, given reaction times and distances, the collision was unavoidable. Plaintiffs may counter with black-box data, skid/yaw analysis, and speed-from-video tools to show excessive speed or failure to brake/steer.
- Evidence of Contributory Negligence in A Baltimore Personal Injury Trial
Defense may probe pedestrian phone use, intoxication, or drug impairment to argue inattentiveness or unsafe crossing decisions. Toxicology and cell-site/usage logs become key. Plaintiffs may respond with timing evidence (e.g., phone use after the crash) and testimony on safe crossing behavior.
- Statutory and signage defenses.
Turning vehicles claim the pedestrian stepped off the curb after the “Don’t Walk” began flashing; drivers exiting alleys claim the pedestrian failed to yield. Where construction altered pedestrian routes, defendants argue confusion or non-compliance with posted detours.
- When all else fails: Exhibit A, The Kitchen Sink
Insurance lawyers may invoke a sudden emergency (another car cut in, brakes failed, heart attack, a dog darted out) or blame a non-party “phantom” vehicle that forced evasive action. Plaintiffs test these claims against physical evidence, ECM data, and witness consistency.
It’s generally stated that the motorist has the right of way between crosswalks, but, that does not mean that a pedestrian crossing outside of a crosswalk is necessarily negligent as a matter of law. Harris V. Bowie, 249 Md. 465 [1968].
If you’ve been injured, I’d be honored to personally meet with you to go through the specifics of your claim. This initial legal analysis and case opinion is a complimentary service I offer to my prospective clients.
- Baltimore Personal Injury Trial Lawyer Eric T. Kirk
- Legal Analysis & Case Studies
- Baltimore Insurance Claims Denial Lawyer
For over three decades, I have battled against the nation’s largest insurance companies, always endeavoring to ensure my clients receive the compensation they deserve. As lead counsel in thousands of cases across Maryland, New York, and Florida, I have recovered millions for clients whose claims were wrongfully denied and delayed. Whether denying fair compensation for a personal injury victim or denying benefits to a homeowner, Insurance companies employ policy exclusions, technicalities, and lowball offers to deny and defeat claims. They also hire very good lawyers to fight you in court. So should you. When an insurance company unfairly rejects a claim, I stop them.
