Hit Pedestrian

[doctordoctor]

What is the name of your state? New York State, NYC

I was in traffic and was caught in a gridbox when the light turned against me. To not block traffic, i turned into an empty lane then hit a jaywalking pedestrian whom I did not see until it was toolate. He was bruised up, but apparently nothing serious thank goodness.

I was driving my mother's car and am not on the insurance. Normally i don't drive the car, only rarely.

Can you tell me the probable outcome of this incident? Who is at fault, what will the pedestrian do, etc...

Thank you.

 

[stuckinlamad]

What did the police say?

Did the guy go to the ER or a doctor?

Have you called the insurance company yet?
I guess I am lucky my insurance covers my car even if I loan it out.

update your post and add some info then maybe someone smarter than me will answer. lol

 

[ecmst12]

OP: How old are you and do you live with your mother? Do you have your own car and insurance?

The accident will likely be deemed the pedestrian's fault since he was jaywalking, so long as nothing you did was illegal. In which case it doesn't matter so much whether you were insured, but it's still good to have coverage just in case.

 

[JETX]

Can you tell me the probable outcome of this incident? Who is at fault, what will the pedestrian do, etc...

Of course, no one can guess what some unknown person might do... however, GENERALLY:
1) You could be sued.
2) and YOU could be found at least partly liable for his injuries....
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rilj/9705/ri970501.htm

 

[doctordoctor]

Yes, my mother and I share a household as she is elderly and I take care of her including occasionally driving her when necessary. I am 33 and do not have a car of my own.

The gentlemen whom I hit was taken away by ambulance but was able to walk on his own. Frankly I suspect a bit of theatrics particularly since he asked the 'witness' below how her ice cream tasted while waiting for the ambulance.

Anyway, there was one overzealous 'witness' who curiously said that she saw me run a red when that was clearly not possible since I was stopped in the grid and also because by the time my vehicle struck the pedestrian, I was already in the middle of the street-well past the lights. I articulated the actual course of events to the attending officer but at this point I am uncertain as to how her 'witness' account will affect any outcomes to this situation.

1. Do you think that I will have to go to court for an extended trial?
2. Given the apparent lack of serious injury, do you think he will be eligible for pain and suffering monies?
3. How much will the fact that he was jaywalking factor into this decision?
4. My name is not on the insurance policy for the car as I am not the regular driver. I do however share the household with the owner of the vehicle (my mother). Does this have any material implications?

Frankly I'm hoping this will all be taken care of without me having to see anything except maybe a higher premium. As a side comment it annoys me to no end that this 'witness' was johnny on the spot with her maudlin histrionics, even offering to put her purse under the pedestrian's shoe?!?! And the judgemental glares over an ACCIDENT in which I was neither negligent nor intoxicated. This guy was jaywalking and just popped into my field of vision. Oh well.

 

[ecmst12]

The fact that he was not in a crosswalk will be the biggest factor; you were legally allowed to be on the road and he was not. Making the accident his fault.

If for some reason it's NOT deemed his fault, then you will be responsible for his injuries. The fact that he was not injured seriously does not bar him from recovering compensation for pain and suffering; just means he'd get less. At least in PA, a pedestrian getting hit by a car gets automatic full tort, meaning he could get compensation beyond actual medical bills.

The problem is, you live with your mother, so you might not be covered as an occasional driver. You will have to call and ask them if you are covered as an occasional driver for this policy. Policies sometimes exclude family members in the same household if they are not expressly listed on the policy. However this might only apply to household members below a certain age so you might be ok. You will have to call and ask them.

Going to court is unlikely. But IF you are not covered by your mother's insurance, you may end up having to hire your own attorney. The pedestrian can attempt to sue you even if the police report lists him as being at fault and you will need someone to advocate for you.

 

[JETX]

Do you think that I will have to go to court for an extended trial?

No one can even guess.

Given the apparent lack of serious injury, do you think he will be eligible for pain and suffering monies?

Very likely.

How much will the fact that he was jaywalking factor into this decision?

Depends. A court could find him 100% liable.... or not liable at all.

My name is not on the insurance policy for the car as I am not the regular driver. I do however share the household with the owner of the vehicle (my mother). Does this have any material implications?

Yep. You will probably face criminal charges at some point, when the police catch on this.

Frankly I'm hoping this will all be taken care of without me having to see anything except maybe a higher premium.

You're an idiot!!!
You have TWO problems here... the first is the personal injury claim by the pedestrian. However, you are ignoring YOUR criminal conduct in driving without insurance. Do you even have a license???

 

[JETX]

The fact that he was not in a crosswalk will be the biggest factor; you were legally allowed to be on the road and he was not. Making the accident his fault.

And of course, no RESPONSIBLE person would make that statement as NO ONE on this forum can determine fault... since we don't KNOW all the facts!!

I also provided a link to a NY lawsuit where a 'jaywalking' pedestrian was found only PARTLY at fault.... further making your 'claim of fault' even more idiotic.

 

[ecmst12]

And of course, no RESPONSIBLE person would make that statement as NO ONE on this forum can determine fault... since we don't KNOW all the facts!!

This is true, I shouldn't have said it's definitely his fault. The odds are good in favor of that, but I am speaking from my personal experience with this situation, which happened in another state so laws may differ.

 

[You Are Guilty]

This is true, I shouldn't have said it's definitely his fault. The odds are good in favor of that, but I am speaking from my personal experience with this situation, which happened in another state so laws may differ.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but all your advice in this thread is wrong. The poster should not have been in "the grid" when the light changed - NYC law requires you to wait before the preceeding crosswalk until there is room for your entire vehicle to fit across the intersection. (Thus, the "don't block the box" signs everywhere). So our driver was illegally in the intersection, which, coupled with the lax enforcement of the jaywalking in the city, means that he's almost certainly be found at least partially liable for any injuries/damages here. That said, Civil Court has a dedicated part just for stupid auto cases like this, and they tend to settle way more often than they go to trial, so I doubt the OP will be seeing a courtroom anytime soon.

One last point. It's unclear where there was insurance on the car at all (i.e. in mom's name). If she had a valid insurance policy, it will probably pick up the defense should the pedestrian sue (policies differ, check with her agent). If it will, be sure to report the accident to them ASAP as failing to do so in a timely fashion is valid grounds not to defend you in a subsequent lawsuit. On the other hand, if neither you nor mom had valid insurance, you're basically screwed. You're personally on the hook for whatever damages they can prove in court, including pain and suffering.

 

[SPR]

Correct me if I am wrong, but because you were not on the insurance as one of the operators of the vehicle, then you could be held fully responsible and face charges for not being insured. It is different if the car was barrowed just once or twice, but because you admitted to using the vehicle more often, then you now need to be put on the coverage.

Is this correct?

 

[JETX]

The poster should not have been in "the grid" when the light changed - NYC law requires you to wait before the preceeding crosswalk until there is room for your entire vehicle to fit across the intersection.

Hmmm... I thought that 'gridbox' was just that traffic was stopped ('gridlock') and that the driver turned onto a sideroad... hitting the pedestrian. I still don't see anything in the original post about the driver being in an INTERSECTION at the time of the incident.
Must be one of those 'cute colloquialisms'... 'gridbox'!!!

 

[You Are Guilty]

Best pictures I could find (in 10 seconds of searching):
http://static.flickr.com/7/9578596_c11865d8a1_m.jpg
http://idhana.com/blog/wp-content/themes/Caffeine/images/dontBlock.jpg
As you can see, they're serious about it -- it's a 2-pointer.

The NYC Rules are only a .pdf on the web, so here's my lazy re-typing of the specifc one at issue for gridlock:

Spillback. No operator shall enter an intersection and its crosswalks unless there is sufficient unobstructed space beyond the intersection and its crosswalks in the lane in which he/she is traveling to accomodate the vehicle, notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed.

There are also state and city catch-all rules that drivers must exercise "due care" at all times, which I'm sure would be applicable as well.