CALL US NOW
EMAIL US NOW
Quick Answer
If you cross a crosswalk on a red “Don’t Walk” signal and are hit by a car in California, fault is typically shared between you and the driver. California follows a pure comparative negligence standard, meaning both parties’ fault is measured in percentages, and your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault, but not eliminated. Even if you bear significant fault for crossing on a red signal, the driver may still be liable if they were speeding, distracted, failing to watch for pedestrians, or otherwise negligent. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at Accident Network Law Group evaluates pedestrian accident fault in cases throughout Southern California.
nohemi bosquez
Key Takeaways
- Crossing on a red “Don’t Walk” signal violates California Vehicle Code Section 21456 and contributes to your percentage of fault
- However, California’s pure comparative negligence standard (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 1975) does not bar recovery; it reduces it
- Drivers still have a duty to watch for pedestrians and to exercise due care to avoid striking them, regardless of signal status
- A driver who was speeding, distracted, or otherwise negligent while hitting a pedestrian crossing on red shares fault
- Your attorney can present evidence of the driver’s fault to maximize your recovery despite your own partial fault
The Legal Effect of Crossing on Red
California Vehicle Code Section 21456 requires pedestrians to obey pedestrian signals. A pedestrian who enters an intersection against a steady red hand or “Don’t Walk” signal is violating this statute, which establishes them as partially at fault under California’s negligence per se doctrine. The severity of the fault depends on how visible the signal was, whether the pedestrian looked before crossing, how far into the intersection they had traveled when struck, and whether they were taking reasonable care despite the signal violation.
However, the pedestrian’s violation of CVC Section 21456 is one factor in the comparative fault analysis, not an automatic bar to recovery. California eliminated contributory negligence (which would bar any recovery by a negligent plaintiff) when it adopted pure comparative negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975).
The Driver’s Ongoing Duty of Care
Even when a pedestrian is crossing on a red signal, California law does not give drivers license to run them down. California Civil Code Section 1714 and CVC Section 21950 impose an ongoing duty on drivers to exercise due care and to avoid striking pedestrians. CVC Section 21950(b) specifically states that pedestrian’s right of way does not relieve them of the duty to exercise due care for their own safety, but it also does not relieve drivers of the duty to exercise due care to avoid collision with pedestrians.
A driver who was paying attention to the road would often have time to brake or take evasive action even for a pedestrian crossing on red. If the driver was distracted by a phone, speeding beyond the posted limit, or failed to scan the intersection for pedestrians before entering on green, the driver bears a portion of the fault.
How Fault Is Allocated
In practice, a typical pedestrian-crossing-on-red case might result in a fault allocation where the pedestrian bears 40 to 60 percent of the fault and the driver bears the remainder. However, this is highly fact-specific. If the driver was significantly impaired, texting, or traveling far above the speed limit, the driver’s fault percentage increases substantially.
Attorney Yazdi presents evidence of driver negligence to minimize the percentage of fault attributed to the pedestrian and maximize the recoverable amount. Even a pedestrian found 60% at fault can recover 40% of their damages. For a pedestrian with $200,000 in damages, that is $80,000.
Pedestrian accident injuries are frequently severe because pedestrians have no protective barrier. Even with significant comparative fault reduction, the recoverable amount can be substantial.
California Laws Relevant to Red-Signal Pedestrian Claims
California Vehicle Code Section 21456 governs pedestrian signal obligations. California Civil Code Section 1714 establishes the general duty of care. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 sets the two-year statute of limitations. California follows pure comparative negligence (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 1975). California Vehicle Code Section 16056 (amended by SB 1107, effective January 1, 2025) sets minimum auto insurance at $30,000/$60,000/$15,000.
Contact a California Pedestrian Accident Attorney
Even if you were crossing on a red signal when hit by a car, you may have a valuable injury claim. Attorney Damoun Yazdi at Accident Network Law Group, with 12+ years of experience and a background as a former law clerk at the LA County DA’s Office, offers free consultations on a contingency basis. Our team serves Riverside, Costa Mesa, Rancho Cucamonga, Apple Valley, Victorville, and throughout Southern California. Se habla espanol.
