Pedestrian Accident Lawyer Los Angeles Crosswalk Hit by Car
Because driving is so heavily regulated, having laws attached to nearly every move a driver makes, the doctrine of negligence per se frequently arises in the context of motor vehicle accidents, whether involving another car, a truck, a motorcyclist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian. This doctrine holds that someone who violates the law, and in the process of doing so causes an injury the law was designed to prevent, is negligent, period. There is no measuring of the"ordinary care," or "reasonable person." The question of negligence is answered in the affirmative, and the discussion turns to the extent and cost of the injuries caused. By way of example, if a person is driving fifty miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with a posted speed limit of twenty-five, and that driver hits a pedestrian, the law will simply presume the driver was negligent, and therefore responsible to pay for the pedestrian's injuries.
It is not just the driver, however, who may be liable. If the driver borrowed the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle had reason to know lending it to the driver was a bad idea, but did so anyway, the owner may be liable. These cases often arise when a car owner lends his or her car to someone who has been drinking alcohol. The law will hold both people responsible for your injuries, since they both played a role in the circumstances causing harm. Other situations where an owner of a car should know better than to lend his or her vehicle to someone may include lending to someone with a known history of driving recklessly or lending to someone who is on medications that impair driving ability.
Also, if the driver who caused the accident, and therefore your injuries, was working at the time of the accident, then the employer may be liable. This general rule holds true if the driver was acting within the scope of the employment when the accident occurred. Although truckers and delivery drivers are classic examples, anyone who is on the clock and running a work-related errand is likely acting within the scope of employment, even if his or her job description does not include driving.
