In California, a pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk must yield to vehicles that are an immediate hazard, but Vehicle Code section 21954 preserves a driver's duty of due care toward pedestrians on the roadway. Under pure comparative negligence, partial pedestrian fault reduces damages but does not automatically bar recovery (Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804).
Key Takeaways
- Vehicle Code section 21954 requires a pedestrian outside a crosswalk to yield to vehicles that are an immediate hazard, while preserving the driver's duty of due care.
- AB 2147 changed citation enforcement for some outside-crosswalk crossings effective January 1, 2023; it did not change civil comparative-fault allocation.
- California pure comparative negligence reduces damages by the pedestrian's fault percentage but does not bar recovery solely due to partial fault (Li v. Yellow Cab Co.).
- The evidence should establish crossing location, timing, visibility, vehicle movement, and the driver's response.
A pedestrian crossing mid-block in Los Angeles may face arguments about right-of-way, but the label jaywalking does not answer every question about a driver's conduct or civil responsibility. California's statutes address the pedestrian's duty to yield and preserve a driver's obligation of due care. This guide explains the effect of AB 2147, comparative fault, and the evidence needed to evaluate a crossing outside a crosswalk.
By Steven Bash, Founding Partner · Legally reviewed September 23, 2026.
What changed with the Freedom to Walk Act
AB 2147, the Freedom to Walk Act, took effect January 1, 2023 and amended Vehicle Code sections 21954-21955. The verified facts state that police may not cite a pedestrian for crossing outside a crosswalk unless a reasonably careful person would recognize an immediate danger of collision. This changed enforcement and citations; it did not change civil fault allocation in an injury case.
Do not treat the absence of a citation as proof that a driver caused the crash, or the existence of a citation as a complete civil-liability decision. The civil analysis still considers the conduct of the pedestrian and driver under the applicable statutes and comparative-negligence principles. A traffic enforcement decision and a civil damages claim address different questions.
The date matters when describing the enforcement rule. AB 2147's effective date is January 1, 2023 under the supplied facts. Do not state it as a new rule that changes civil liability or eliminates the pedestrian's duty to yield.
Pedestrian duties when crossing outside a crosswalk
Vehicle Code section 21954 requires a pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk to yield to vehicles that are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard. Whether a vehicle was an immediate hazard depends on the situation, including distance, movement, visibility, and timing. The legal standard does not permit assumptions based solely on the fact that the pedestrian crossed mid-block.
Section 21954(b) preserves a driver's duty of due care toward any pedestrian on the roadway regardless of location. A driver may still have had a chance to see the pedestrian and take reasonable action. The evidence should address the driver's position, speed or movement as shown by reliable evidence, sight lines, and response time, without inventing measurements.
A crossing outside a crosswalk is different from a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection governed by Vehicle Code section 21950. Unmarked crosswalks legally exist at most intersections under section 275. Establish the actual place of crossing before applying a label.
How drivers' duties continue to matter
The driver's obligation of due care does not disappear because the pedestrian was outside a crosswalk. Section 21954(b) expressly preserves that duty. The central factual questions include whether the driver could see the pedestrian, when the pedestrian became visible, how the vehicle moved, and what action was possible in the circumstances.
For an intersection crosswalk, section 21950 requires a driver to yield to pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks and to exercise all due care. The pedestrian's own duties do not relieve the driver of the driver's obligations. A driver violation of section 21950 can support negligence per se, but the surrounding evidence still matters in evaluating a claim.
Preserve both favorable and unfavorable facts. If the pedestrian entered the roadway suddenly, record the sequence and available sight lines. If the driver had a clear opportunity to respond, preserve witnesses or video that may show that timing. A balanced factual record is more useful than treating either person's duty as absolute.
How California comparative negligence affects recovery
California applies pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. If a pedestrian is found partly at fault, the damages are reduced by that percentage, but partial fault does not automatically bar recovery, no matter how high the percentage. This rule is the civil fault framework; it is not changed by AB 2147's effect on citations.
A defense may argue that the pedestrian's crossing conduct contributed to the collision. The pedestrian may respond with evidence about the driver's duty, visibility, movement, and opportunity to avoid the impact. The factfinder assesses the relative conduct and assigns a share of fault based on evidence, not a generic assumption that every mid-block crossing has the same outcome.
Where more than one defendant contributed, Civil Code section 1431.2 distinguishes economic from non-economic damages: economic damages are joint and several, while non-economic liability is apportioned severally according to each defendant's fault. The allocation among defendants is separate from the percentage assigned to the pedestrian.
Evidence that establishes crossing location and timing
Document the exact location from multiple perspectives. Photograph crosswalk paint or its absence, the nearest intersection, curb cuts, signs, traffic controls, lighting, and any obstruction to view. Record the pedestrian's route and direction of travel, the vehicle's direction, and any witness who can describe the sequence. Preserve original files and note when each image was taken.
- Video and witnesses. Promptly identify available cameras and save contact information for people who observed the crossing or vehicle approach.
- Scene geometry. Photograph landmarks and sight lines that help explain distance and visibility; avoid estimating speed without a reliable basis.
- Vehicle information. Preserve identifying details and photographs of any damage, and note the final positions if known.
- Injury records. Keep medical documentation, treatment dates, and a clear account of symptoms and resulting limitations.
A police report, citation, or lack of citation can be part of the record, but none replaces the full civil analysis. Separate observed facts from conclusions and preserve any contemporaneous communication about the crash.
Practical next steps after a mid-block collision
Write down the date and exact location promptly, including the nearest intersection and the point where the pedestrian entered and left the roadway. Keep the original scene photographs and request preservation of any relevant video. Collect witness details without coaching or asking anyone to adopt a particular legal label.
Check for any public entity or vehicle as well as a private driver. A written public-entity claim generally must be presented within six months under Government Code section 911.2, even though the ordinary injury period is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. If a public agency may be responsible, do not let an argument about jaywalking distract from the separate deadline.
Words used after a crash can influence how people frame the event, so record the observable facts before selecting a label. State where the pedestrian was in relation to the nearest intersection, whether a marked or unmarked crosswalk was present, and what the approaching vehicle did. If a witness uses the word jaywalking, ask what they saw that supports the description rather than treating the word as a legal conclusion.
The evidence can support more than one inference. A sudden entry into a vehicle's immediate path may support an argument about the pedestrian's conduct; a clear opportunity for the driver to observe and respond may support an argument about the driver's conduct. Preserve facts that bear on both, including the approach paths, visibility, and timing. Section 21954(b) preserves due care duties toward pedestrians on the roadway, while pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. accounts for a pedestrian's own share of fault.
AB 2147's enforcement rule should be described narrowly. It limits specified citations; the verified facts expressly say it does not change civil fault allocation. Do not tell a reader that a crossing is immune from civil scrutiny simply because a citation was unavailable.
When comparing accounts, note the vantage point and limits of each source. A person who saw only the aftermath may be able to identify the vehicle but not the crossing sequence. A camera angle may show a movement while obscuring distance or signal status. Preserve these limits as well as useful details. A fair assessment recognizes that the evidence may support more than one conclusion and that comparative fault is an allocation based on the full record, not a fixed penalty attached to crossing outside a crosswalk.
Keep legal enforcement separate from civil damages when reviewing an officer's decision. The fact that a citation was or was not issued may explain part of the history, but AB 2147's change concerns enforcement. The civil case still requires attention to the pedestrian's and driver's actions and their causal relationship to the injury. If someone relies on a citation as conclusive, ask which underlying observations it records and compare them with other evidence.
For an LA pedestrian crash involving an outside-crosswalk crossing, early review can help separate citation rules, civil duties, and comparative fault. Free consultation. No fees unless we win your case. Call (323) 850-0101 or visit Hollywood Injury Law Center. This guide is attorney advertising and general information only; it is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Los Angeles County mid-block pedestrian claims
Most Los Angeles County personal injury cases are filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Los Angeles County Superior Court; the exact courthouse assignment should be confirmed for each case; confirm the exact venue. Vehicle Code section 21954 governs pedestrian crossings outside crosswalks statewide, while section 21950 addresses marked and unmarked intersection crosswalks. The general injury deadline is two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1; a public-entity claim generally requires written presentation within six months under Government Code section 911.2. Preserve the actual crossing location, nearby intersection, sight lines, and available witness information.