Can Someone Hit a Pedestrian and Not Hold Any Liability?

I have a question regarding a family member who lives in Florida and who was hit by a car.  The family member is disabled and was utilizing his mechanized scooter to cross the street at a marked intersection.  He says  that he entered the intersection correctly (it was a 4 lane road and took him a while to cross) but the police report states that: “AS V2 (other party) WAS ENTERING THE INTERSECTION, WITH THE GREEN LIGHT, DRIVER 2 STRUCK THE DRIVER OF SCOOTER. MULTIPLE WITNESSES CONFIRMED THAT THE LIGHT WAS GREEN AT THE TIME OF CRASH.”

My family member spent overnight in the hospital with cuts and severe bruising.  He has had to pay for the hospital and ambulance expenses and a new scooter out of pocket.  The other party’s insurance company denied the claim entirely.

We have been told that there is no basis for a lawsuit or to obtain any payment from the other driver’s insurance company because my family member crossed against the light.  Is that correct??   While he may have done so, wouldn’t that factor in as comparative negligence in settling the claim, as opposed to absolving the other party of any and all responsibility?  I can’t believe that just because someone crossed against the light the other party bears no legal or financial responsibility, especially when the person that was hit was obviously disabled.

Can you please advise as to whether this is correct and if so what is the reasoning behind it? I would sincerely appreciate any insight or explanation you can offer.

Thank you very much in advance.

I am not a lawyer, but what you are essentially saying, is this person was jaywalking?

(or sorry, I suppose "jay scooting")

They can and do give out tickets for that in many cities.

I know others here who know much more about this than I do, so I will let them tell you.

It's just hard for me to believe you can jump out into traffic against the light, and expect to find the other driver at fault and want compensation for it.  Perhaps I'm wrong?

You can consult with a PI attorney at no cost. You can trust They will not turn down a good case.

Thanks for your response and your perspective.  While it may have taken him longer to cross because of his disability in no way did he "jump out" into traffic as not only would it be physically impossible for him to do so, he is mentally capable and fully aware of his surroundings.  My point being is that regardless of the jaywalking, when is it ever OK to hit a pedestrian with your car and not be held liable at all.  Aren't you supposed to have control of your car at all times?

Yes he did consult with an attorney today and he said he would not take the case.  I was shoced to hear that so thought I'd ask around for other opinions.

I did not conclude anything about Darting out In the OP.

Either way, the Driver must make every effort to avoid hitting a person , another car or debri . " last chance law"

He could try another attorney,

It really depends on the details. IT could be there might not be enough insurance.

If the police report is not favorble to the injured, It can be difficult to fight unless you can reverse the ticket

At common law, the rule was that if the injured party was in any way contributorily negligent, he was barred from any recovery, no matter how slight his negligence. Under that rule, your relative would not recover anything. Many states now have statutes that modify the rules to take out some of the harsh results that could occur at common law. One is a modified contributory negligence system where the test is whether the injured party was more at fault than the defendant. If he was, he is barred from any recovery; if he wasn't, he can recover for the injuries he sustained. Some states have moved to a comparative negligence system in which the damages are allocated based on degree of fault—if the plaintiff was 60% negligent, he only gets 40% of his damages, but if he was only 15% negligent, he recovers 85% of his damages. I don't know which of these Florida uses.

However, before getting into that any more deeply, the first question that must asked is whether the driver that struck your relative was negligent at all. Simply hitting your relative while he was on a scooter does not itself indicate negligence. What facts are there that indicate he did something wrong? If he wasn't negligent, then he is not liable for this. Only if he was somehow negligent would it be necessary to figure out what Florida's contributory/comparative negligence scheme is.

IL6088:

We have been told that there is no basis for a lawsuit or to obtain any payment from the other driver’s insurance company because my family member crossed against the light.  Is that correct??  

In theory, it could be correct.

Under the law of negligence if a person has a duty to obey traffic laws and traffic signals and does obey traffic laws and traffic signals then he is absolved from responsibility for something that happens that is sudden and unforseen, like somebody in a wheelchair crossing against the light.

IL6088:

While he may have done so, wouldn’t that factor in as comparative negligence in settling the claim, as opposed to absolving the other party of any and all responsibility?

You're right. Comparative negligence would apply IF there was comparative negligence. But you don't apply comparative negligence out of just sympathy for a disabled person trying to cross the street in a wheelchair. You apply comparative negligence when there IS comparative negligence.

IL6088:

I can’t believe that just because someone crossed against the light the other party bears no legal or financial responsibility, especially when the person that was hit was obviously disabled.

Believe it.

Even a disabled person has a duty to know his limitations. If he bit off more than he could chew by attempting a 4 lane street he should have known that he couldn't make it and should have taking appropriate precautions like timing the light and knowing his speed.

IL6088:

The other party’s insurance company denied the claim entirely.

That's right. It's within the insurance company's right to deny a claim if it feels that its policyholder is blameless.

Then it's up to your relative to file suit and attempt to make his case in court.

IL6088:

While it may have taken him longer to cross because of his disability in no way did he "jump out" into traffic as not only would it be physically impossible for him to do so, he is mentally capable and fully aware of his surroundings.

He didn't have to "jump out" to be negligent. That it takes him longer to cross and he did so without planning for the extra wide street is negligence.

IL6088:

My point being is that regardless of the jaywalking, when is it ever OK to hit a pedestrian with your car and not be held liable at all.

The driver didn't do it on purpose. When a driver is not negligent he is not liable.

IL6088:

Aren't you supposed to have control of your car at all times?

Theoretically, yes. But let's face it, anybody who's been driving any length of time knows that you can be in complete control and still hit or be hit by something impossible to see coming from the side.

IL6088:

Yes he did consult with an attorney today and he said he would not take the case. 

Then he should consult with other attorneys.

It's possible that an attorney would take the case for its nuisance value, meaning that, faced with spending money on defending a lawsuit, the insurance company might offer a modest amount of go-away money without any admission of liability.

Taxagent:

At common law, the rule was that if the injured party was in any way contributorily negligent, he was barred from any recovery, no matter how slight his negligence. Under that rule, your relative would not recover anything. Many states now have statutes that modify the rules to take out some of the harsh results that could occur at common law. One is a modified contributory negligence system where the test is whether the injured party was more at fault than the defendant. If he was, he is barred from any recovery; if he wasn't, he can recover for the injuries he sustained. Some states have moved to a comparative negligence system in which the damages are allocated based on degree of fault—if the plaintiff was 60% negligent, he only gets 40% of his damages, but if he was only 15% negligent, he recovers 85% of his damages. I don't know which of these Florida uses.

Florida is pure comparative negligence per statute 768.81:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0768/SEC81.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0768->Section%2081#0768.81

If it can be proven that the driver was even minutely negligent, then your relative could conceivably recover some amount of money.

However, with witnesses testifying that the driver had the green light and was otherwise obeying the traffic laws it's going to be very difficult to establish a percentage of negligence to the driver. And even if it could be established it is likely to be very, very small.

IL6088:

 Aren't you supposed to have control of your car at all times?

Of course.   Show me a driver or a car that can stop on a dime.  Isn't your relative supposed to be in control of his electric wheelchair at all times?  I would hope so.

You must not read the papers very often.  This happens all the time.  A pedestrian or bicyclist or wheelchair gets hit by car because it's in the street where/when it's not supposed to be and the driver is NOT charged nor is he/she liable for the accident.  The person in the street when they are not supposed to be is the one at fault.

Taxagent:
Thank you so much for your reply.  This is exactly what I was looking for by way of an explanation.  I have a much better understanding of the law now and can rationalize what happened in terms of it.  Thank you again!

Adjuster Jack:

Thank you so much for your reply!  You broke it all down so perfectly that now I have a very good understanding of the law and how it applies in this situation.  You have helped me immensely and I am sincerly appreciative.  If you're not a lawyer you should be one!

Thanks to everyone for their assistance with this.  The information you've all provided enabled me to take a step back to view and understand what occurred from the legal perspective, as opposed to just a personal one.  Thanks again!

And we all thank YOU for being open minded enough to listen to others' opinions and expertise!  We don't get that a lot around here.  What we typically get are those who just want to argue their point and then they get really mean about it.  It's refreshing to see that someone "gets it."

Very sorry about your relative though.  Have you thought of fighting to make the "walk" signals longer?  Just a thought. Don't know if they will or not but it might be a better place to start.  Or, and I KNOW it's very difficult to sue the city, but maybe your walk lights there are very short?  Making it impossible to get through one in a timely manner?

I completely understand what you are saying, there is a lot of hostility out there and its unfortunate.  Everyone who assisted me with my question was very respectful, but there have been times when it totally disintegrates.  Personally, I would NEVER challenge or argue with someone until I know all of the facts (laws, formal reports etc.) and that is where forums such as this, along with some legitimate research (the statute link was very appreciated) are invaluable.  While I may have a personal bias in this situation, there is still no point in pursuing legal action if the case is without merit.

I really like your suggestion regarding redirecting my efforts towards possibly challenging the signal lights.  Excellent idea!

Thanks Truffles4me and all others.

It is also possible that a motorized anything  and also a bicycle is NOT a pedestrian under your states MV codes and that could be a factor .