Pedestrian ran in front of my car. He's coming after me now.

[zddoodah]

One more thing, if I may? I am on public assistance (medi-cal) right now., with limited funds. Is a pro-bono lawyer a viable option - in your opinion?

No such thing exists.

There are organizations (e.g., the ACLU) who may pay a lawyer to work on a case at no cost to the client. Additionally, lawyers sometimes do pro bono work in areas that are important to them (e.g., homeless rights advocacy). You might be willing to find a lawyer who will be willing to do limited work on a pro bono basis. You could reach out to the State Bar or a local bar association to see if they have any programs that might help you. You could also reach out to local law schools to see if any have clinics where law students do work under the supervision of lawyers.

That being said, if you don't have insurance and are essentially insolvent, you're not a good target for an attorney looking to make a quick buck.

 

[Taxing Matters]

If state law requires prompt exchange of insurance information, then that information, and only that information ought to be provided now. Two reasons for that. First, it meets the state law requirement. Second, the pedestrian's lawyer may be a lot less eager to sue once he or she learns there no insurance money that would pay any judgment. Next, consult an attorney who defends personal injury lawsuits. Any statements made about how the accident occurred can come back to bite you in the butt. What may sound like an innocent or helpful statement to you (or your friend) may end up hurting your case.

Quincy's suggestion of consulting a traffic attorney is, I think, misplaced in this instance because this isn't matter of challenging a traffic citation. This is personal injury matter for the pedestrian and a damage claim against the pedestrian for the damage done to the car by the car owner. Indeed, it may be that if the lawyer contacts the pedestrian's attorney and threatens a counter suit for the damages done to the car the pedestrian may become more reasonable to deal with. Although I'm a tax attorney, two of the attorneys in my firm litigate personal injury claims, including a fair number of auto accidents. We constantly tell potential clients to make no statements at all beyond providing insurance info to the other party or their attorney. Even at the scene of the accident when questioned by police the less said, the better. If the police don't show up and state law requires you submit a written report of the accident that is best done with the aid of an attorney because whatever is said in that report can be used against you by the pedestrian.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Anything you say (including your posts here, by the way) could be admitted into evidence. We have no way of assessing the likelihood that you might write something that could be used against you. If you retain the services of an attorney, your attorney could respond on your behalf, and (1) he/she could write something that would be safe, and (2) what he/she writes would not likely be admissible.

Quoting for emphasis.

Because OP did not have insurance at the time of the accident, it is especially important that they are careful in responding to a legal inquiry.

 

[quincy]

… Quincy's suggestion of consulting a traffic attorney is, I think, misplaced in this instance because this isn't matter of challenging a traffic citation. This is personal injury matter for the pedestrian and a damage claim against the pedestrian for the damage done to the car by the car owner … it may be that if the lawyer contacts the pedestrian's attorney and threatens a counter suit for the damages done to the car the pedestrian may become more reasonable to deal with … make no statements at all beyond providing insurance info to the other party or their attorney. …

There is a need for an attorney familiar with both personal injury law (that is what the pedestrian will be concentrating on) and traffic law (which is what a driver’s defense will probably want to concentrate on). There are attorneys who specialize in automobile accidents that cover both.

It seems to me that askingforafriendofmine’s primary arguments in any case the pedestrian files will not be that the pedestrian was not injured or argue about the severity of the injuries but rather that the pedestrian injuries were caused by the pedestrian’s own negligence. He walked in front of a moving car.

 

[Zigner]

He walked in front of a moving car.

Was the pedestrian in a crosswalk?

 

[Taxing Matters]

There is a need for an attorney familiar with both personal injury law (that is what the pedestrian will be concentrating on) and traffic law (which is what a driver’s defense will probably want to concentrate on). There are attorneys who specialize in automobile accidents that cover both.

Personal injury attorneys who handle auto accidents have to deal with both in many since one of the things often at issue is whether one of the parties in the case was violating the traffic laws. Attorneys who handle traffic ticket cases are focusing on defending against charges brought by the government of violating the traffic laws. That involves a very different approach and knowledge base than a personal injury case. There are attorneys who practice both but, at least in my state, for any lawsuit between the parties related to damages coming out the accident a personal injury lawyer will be capable of handling that even though the attorney doesn't defend drivers in traffic cases. That's at least the case in each jurisdiction where I've lived.

It seems to me that askingforafriendofmine’s primary arguments in any case the pedestrian files will not be that the pedestrian was not injured or argue about the severity of the injuries but rather that the pedestrian injuries were caused by the pedestrian’s own negligence. He walked in front of a moving car.

I agree that is likely to be one of the arguments the driver will consider. That falls squarely in the realm of what personal injury lawyers do. Negligence is at the heart of most personal injury claims and many property damage cases too.

 

[quincy]

Was the pedestrian in a crosswalk?

I don’t know. The pedestrian apparently was crossing against the light, however, and in front of more than one vehicle.

And, to clear up a misreading by some, I never said anything about a traffic ticket attorney. I also don’t remember reading anything about a traffic ticket being issued.

 

[Zigner]

I don’t know. The pedestrian apparently was crossing against the light, however, and in front of more than one vehicle.

You misread the OP. The OP stated: "Traffic was light at that time...", not that there was a traffic light (or, maybe *I* missed it).

Also, further to my earlier question, a "crosswalk" does not need to be "marked" in California. If this happened at an intersection, and the pedestrian was crossing from one corner to the opposite corner, the pedestrian was in a crosswalk, regardless of whether or not it was marked. If this didn't happen at an intersection, then it would need to be marked to be a crosswalk.

I have to wonder why the vehicle on the right didn't hit the pedestrian...

 

[quincy]

… I have to wonder why the vehicle on the right didn't hit the pedestrian...

Apparently there were witnesses and the police did not (at least at the time) cite askingforafriend for anything - although they probably would have if they had known he was driving uninsured. I would have thought the police would know about his insurance status which is why I remain curious about when the insurance lapsed. Many insurers have a limited “grace” period where insurance remains in effect briefly after a missed payment.

At any rate, there are several questions left unanswered. I hope askingforafriend has by now contacted an attorney and has responded to the pedestrian’s attorney-letter. Any attorney askingforafriend consults should have the answers that we cannot provide.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Apparently there were witnesses and the police did not (at least at the time) cite askingforafriend for anything - although they probably would have if they had known he was driving uninsured. I would have thought the police would know about his insurance status which is why I remain curious about when the insurance lapsed. Many insurers have a limited “grace” period where insurance remains in effect briefly after a missed payment.

That makes me wonder just what investigation the cop did. In the states I've lived in if the driver can't present valid proof of insurance the driver is always cited, even if the policy lapsed a few days earlier and could be reinstated retroactively. If it does get reinstated the driver can go to the court clerk to show the proof of insurance and the court drops the insurance charge. Perhaps it works differently in the OPs state but unless the cop could verify by computer that the policy was in place I'd find it odd that no citation was given. Few cops working traffic assignments would skip over that. Asking for license, registration, and proof of insurance is in their DNA; they do it on every traffic stop. The situation strikes me as a bit odd.

 

[quincy]

That makes me wonder just what investigation the cop did. In the states I've lived in if the driver can't present valid proof of insurance the driver is always cited, even if the policy lapsed a few days earlier and could be reinstated retroactively. If it does get reinstated the driver can go to the court clerk to show the proof of insurance and the court drops the insurance charge. Perhaps it works differently in the OPs state but unless the cop could verify by computer that the policy was in place I'd find it odd that no citation was given. Few cops working traffic assignments would skip over that. Asking for license, registration, and proof of insurance is in their DNA; they do it on every traffic stop. The situation strikes me as a bit odd.

I found that odd, as well.

 

[Zigner]

That makes me wonder just what investigation the cop did. In the states I've lived in if the driver can't present valid proof of insurance the driver is always cited, even if the policy lapsed a few days earlier and could be reinstated retroactively. If it does get reinstated the driver can go to the court clerk to show the proof of insurance and the court drops the insurance charge. Perhaps it works differently in the OPs state but unless the cop could verify by computer that the policy was in place I'd find it odd that no citation was given. Few cops working traffic assignments would skip over that. Asking for license, registration, and proof of insurance is in their DNA; they do it on every traffic stop. The situation strikes me as a bit odd.

I suspect the OP presented a proof of insurance card that had a later expiration date. The cops don't always confirm the status if an apparently valid card is presented.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I suspect the OP presented a proof of insurance card that had a later expiration date. The cops don't always confirm the status if an apparently valid card is presented.

If that's the case and the OP/friend knew the insurance was expired when the OP/friend gave it to the cop the OP/friend may yet another legal problem. It's a crime in most states to do that, either as a crime specific to presenting false proof of insurance or the more general crime of knowingly providing false information to a law enforcement officer. That could end up being a bigger than if the OP/friend simply admitted to the cop that the insurance lapsed or invoked his/her right to remain silent.