Numerous states and municipalities have enacted legislation prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways outside demarcated crosswalks. Additionally, traffic signals and signage may direct pedestrians to pause before traversing or to yield to approaching vehicular traffic.
The behavior in question is commonly called “jaywalking” in informal language. Although the term “jaywalking” is not explicitly utilized in Arizona legislation, it does proscribe pedestrians from crossing the roadway in particular situations that are considered hazardous. If you have been given a ticket for jaywalking, you may want to learn more about the consequences by contacting a local attorney.
legal regulations pertaining to jaywalking in the state of Arizona.
The state legislation does not employ the precise phrase “jaywalking.” Notwithstanding, Arizona legislation mandates that pedestrians adhere to specific regulations while traversing the thoroughfare. The statute in question states the following:
- According to traffic regulations, a pedestrian must prioritize all vehicles on the roadway.
- In cases where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing is present, it is incumbent upon the pedestrian to cede priority to all vehicular traffic on the roadway while crossing.
- Pedestrians are prohibited from crossing between adjacent intersections where traffic control signals are in operation, except in a designated crosswalk.
Is it possible to pursue a pedestrian accident claim in the event of jaywalking?
Absolutely. In the event of a pedestrian sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle collision, they can initiate a claim for damages against the liable party. The pedestrian’s entitlement to recompense may be influenced by the extent of their contribution to the accident’s occurrence.
Several states have a legal provision that permits individuals who have suffered injuries to seek compensation through litigation, provided that their degree of responsibility for the accident leading to the injury is less than 50 percent. A limited number of states also prohibit prospective plaintiffs from seeking reparation in the event of their partial contribution.
Fortunately, Arizona does not belong to either of the aforementioned categories. In contrast, pedestrians within the state are permitted to seek compensation despite bearing 99 percent of the liability for the incident in question. Nonetheless, the overall remuneration of the individuals will be diminished in correlation to their level of culpability.
As an illustration, assuming the valuation of one’s injuries sustained in a pedestrian accident amounts to $100,000. Nevertheless, the jury in the aforementioned case has determined that you bear a 25% degree of responsibility. In the given scenario, the damages incurred by the affected party would be diminished in correlation to the sum of $75,000.
