Brent Kevin Ali
Attorney-at-Law
My Blog
Blog
Pedestrian Rights
Posted on March 3, 2013 at 8:33 AM |
![]() |
Pedestrian Rights
The
recent fatal road traffic accident at Sea Lots, Port of Spain, has evoked great emotion,
caused national inconvenience and even led to the dismissal of a reporter. There has been little debate on the rights
and duties of pedestrian and motorist alike and it poses an apt example to
highlight some common misconceptions and answer the question do pedestrians owe a duty of care when
crossing the nation's road?
While it
is common knowledge that motorists owe a duty of care towards all other road
users, both motors and pedestrians, what
is less known is the duties pedestrians owe to themselves and to motorists.
In the
absence of a pedestrian crossing or traffic light, pedestrians have not right
of way that supersedes that of motorists.
A pedestrian crossing a road owes a duty to himself and to road users to
exercise caution and not cross in circumstances that can pose a danger to himself
and others. This
principle is nothing new and is part of the general concept of the law of negligence. In the local case of Serrano v. Albino and Collins[1]
(an unreported decision of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago delivered on
23 July 2004), a pedestrian was
stuck by a taxi whilst attempting to cross Independence Square, Port of Spain,
an area overflowing with pedestrians.
The court noted a crucial factor was whether the motor vehicle was
lawfully travelling on the road at the point in time, noting: [2]
“It is
one thing to be struck by a motor vehicle which is lawfully travelling on the
road; but another matter altogether to be struck by a vehicle which is
illegally overtaking on the left hand of the lawful traffic proceeding along
the road. The duty of care on the driver
and on the pedestrian is completely different in the two situations.” The
Court held that the pedestrian was not entitled to cross the road in the manner
that he did:
“In
fact, the Court found that the plaintiff did not exercise care for his own
safety as a pedestrian. The plaintiff
was not entitled, in an unexpected manoeuvre, to dart across the road without
exercising the required caution.
The
Court followed the approach of Luck J. in the unreported case of Roderick Bernard v. Samuel Sirkissoon
HCA 951 of 1984. Lucky J said at page 5:
‘The plaintiff pleaded that he was crossing the road, indeed he was, he
had passed between two parked vehicles, but he had to cross a part of the road
where there were moving vehicles. He
owed the other users a duty to proceed with care, I think, to stay out of the
path of vehicles. Apparently, his left
foot was in the way, this is based upon the evidence of the independent
witness, Hills, who said, ‘he put his left foot forward and the car coming down
bounce him.’ ”
Pedestrians
who attempt to cross roadways owe a duty of care to stay out of the path of
vehicles and do not have a right of way that supersedes that of motorists.
This
does not mean that motorists can collide with pedestrians with impunity. Motorists owe a duty to obey traffic
regulations, to take evasive measures to avoid accidents and, where negligent,
for example by driving in excess of the speed limit or in an unlawful manner
such as illegally overtaking, they will be held liable in negligence and, where
appropriate, for criminal prosecution, such as causing death by dangerous
driving or other road traffic offences set out in the Motor Vehicle and Road
Traffic Act Chap. 48:50. The law
imposes duties on both motors and pedestrians alike and each should be made
aware of this fact. In other countries,
particularly in highways, the laws prohibit any pedestrian presence and even
imposes fines for 'jaywalking'. Perhaps
the layout and haphazard development of our road systems precludes such laws at
this present time. They deserve future
consideration.
As with
everyone else, our sympathy goes out to the victims and their families who
suffered in the recent accident in Sea Lots and nothing contained here should
detract from this.
[1] HCA No. 6421 of 1988 (unreported) decided on 23 July 2004 [2] Ibid. at page 5 |
Categories
/