When a car hits a pedestrian, the driver is not automatically 100% at fault. Missouri law allows fault to be divided between the driver and pedestrian, and that percentage can directly affect how much compensation you recover.
Missouri’s Pure Comparative Fault Rule — What It Means for Injured Pedestrians
Missouri follows a rule called pure comparative fault. This means responsibility for an accident can be divided among the driver, the pedestrian, and anyone else whose actions contributed to the crash.
You Can Recover Even If You Were Partly at Fault
A pedestrian does not necessarily lose the right to compensation because they crossed outside a marked crosswalk, looked at a phone, or made another mistake. Instead, the pedestrian’s compensation is generally reduced according to the percentage of fault assigned to them.
Instead of completely ending your claim, your share of fault generally reduces how much you can recover.
The full situation still matters. A Brown & Crouppen pedestrian accident attorney can investigate these issues, gather available evidence, and challenge an insurance company’s attempt to place unfair blame on you.
How the Fault Percentage Reduces Your Settlement — A Plain-Language Example
If your pedestrian accident claim is worth $500,000 and you are found 20% at fault, your potential recovery could be reduced to $400,000. That reduction can apply to the entire award, including medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. This is why even a relatively small disagreement over the fault percentage can make a significant difference in what you recover.
Kansas City’s State Line Problem: Missouri vs. Kansas Rules
Kansas City sits in two states, and the rules can change depending on where the accident happened. Missouri uses pure comparative fault, so you may still recover compensation even if you share responsibility, although your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. Kansas uses a different comparative negligence rule. In a typical case involving one pedestrian and one driver, being found 50% or more at fault may prevent you from recovering compensation.
How Fault Is Actually Determined After a Kansas City Pedestrian Accident
In another Brown & Crouppen case just outside Kansas City, a client was crossing an intersection on a motor scooter when a driver who was not paying attention struck her. The crash caused fractured ribs and aggravated an existing hernia condition. Brown & Crouppen attorney Tom Davis and his team handled the claim and obtained the driver’s $100,000 policy limits. The case is a useful reminder that an insurance company should not focus only on what the person crossing the street was doing. Driver attention matters too. Phone use, failure to keep a proper lookout, or simply not watching the road can become important evidence when determining who had the better opportunity to prevent the collision.
Police Reports — Useful Starting Point, Not the Final Word
A police report may include statements from the driver, pedestrian, and witnesses. It may also contain a crash diagram, information about citations, road conditions, and the officer’s observations.
The report is important, but it does not make the final decision about who is responsible.
Police officers usually arrive after the accident. They must piece together what happened based on what people tell them and what evidence is still at the scene.
Surveillance Footage, Traffic Cameras, and Witness Accounts
Video can establish whether the pedestrian entered the street suddenly, how fast the vehicle was traveling, whether the driver braked, and how long the pedestrian was visible before impact.
Potential footage may come from nearby businesses, residences, apartment buildings, buses, dash cameras, doorbell cameras, or municipal traffic systems. Because some systems automatically overwrite older recordings, identifying cameras and requesting that relevant footage be preserved early can be important.
Independent witnesses may also describe details that are not obvious from physical evidence, such as whether the driver was looking down, accelerated through an intersection, or failed to react despite having a clear view.
A Brown & Crouppen case in downtown Kansas City shows why witness statements can change the picture. A husband and wife were crossing Grand Boulevard near 14th Street on their way to a concert when a northbound car struck them in the crosswalk. The driver told police she did not see any pedestrians. However, witnesses said other vehicles had already stopped to let concertgoers cross. Both pedestrians suffered serious fractures and missed work while recovering. Brown & Crouppen represented the couple, and the insurer ultimately agreed to settle their claims for $400,000 without admitting liability. The case shows why a driver’s first account should not be treated as the final word when other evidence tells a different story.
Physical Evidence: Crosswalk Location, Lighting, and Road Conditions
Investigators may examine skid marks, debris, vehicle damage, the pedestrian’s point of impact, final resting positions, signal timing, sight distance, streetlights, weather, and the location of the nearest crosswalk.
Road design can become particularly important on wide Kansas City streets where pedestrians must cross several lanes of traffic. A pedestrian may have been outside a marked crosswalk, but parked vehicles, construction, faded markings, a malfunctioning signal, poor lighting, or an unusually long crossing distance may help explain why the collision occurred. The driver’s responsibility must also be considered in light of those conditions.
Kansas City uses crash data to identify streets and intersections where serious injuries happen most often. The City’s High Injury Network even includes a separate layer for “vulnerable road users,” including pedestrians and cyclists. That type of local crash data does not prove who caused one particular accident, but it can help identify roadways where speed, visibility, intersection design, or pedestrian access deserve a closer look.
Factors That Can Assign Fault to the Pedestrian
Here are a few common situations where both sides may share responsibility:
- Example: A college student looks down at a text while approaching a crosswalk and is struck by a driver making a left turn. Investigators may consider whether both people were distracted.
- Example: A man steps into the street between parked SUVs. The driver says he appeared suddenly, but nearby video may show whether there was time to react.
- Example: A pedestrian starts crossing on a “Walk” signal, but it changes before she reaches the other side. That signal change alone does not decide fault.
Jaywalking and Crossing Outside a Designated Crosswalk
Crossing mid-block may support an argument that the pedestrian contributed to the crash, particularly when a marked crosswalk was nearby. The pedestrian may be expected to yield to vehicles when crossing outside a designated location.
The relevant questions include how far away the vehicle was when the pedestrian entered the roadway, how fast the vehicle was traveling, whether the pedestrian was plainly visible, and whether the driver had enough time to slow down or change lanes. A mid-block crossing may justify assigning some fault to the pedestrian, but it does not excuse speeding, distracted driving, impairment, or failing to keep a proper lookout.
Crossing Against the Signal
Entering a crosswalk while a “Don’t Walk” signal is displayed may result in comparative fault. Drivers rely on traffic signals to anticipate when pedestrians will enter the roadway.
Even so, a green light does not give a driver permission to disregard a pedestrian who is already visible. Drivers must continue watching the road and take reasonable steps to avoid a collision when possible.
Distracted Walking
A pedestrian looking at a phone, wearing headphones, or otherwise failing to pay attention may not notice a vehicle or traffic signal. An insurer may use that behavior to argue that the pedestrian failed to exercise reasonable care.
Phone use should still be evaluated in context. The driver may also have been distracted, speeding, or turning without checking for pedestrians. Electronic records and video may help determine which distractions actually contributed to the crash.
Darting Into Traffic
A pedestrian who suddenly steps from behind a parked vehicle or runs into the road may leave the driver with little opportunity to respond. This can result in a significant fault assignment.
However, “darted into traffic” is sometimes merely the driver’s description of the accident. Witness testimony, surveillance video, vehicle speed, and sight-distance measurements may show that the pedestrian was visible longer than the driver claimed.
How Insurance Companies Use Fault to Reduce What They Pay You
Early Recorded Statements and How They Lock In a Fault Narrative
An adjuster may contact an injured pedestrian shortly after the accident and request a recorded statement. The pedestrian may still be in pain, taking medication, waiting for a diagnosis, or unaware of the available evidence. Recorded statements tend to preserve the insurer’s preferred version of the accident while memories, footage, and physical evidence may disappear.
Injured pedestrians should understand that an adjuster’s questions are designed to evaluate and limit the claim, not simply to check on their recovery.
Why the Insurer’s First Fault Assessment Is a Starting Position, Not a Verdict
An insurance company’s percentage is a negotiating position. It is not binding on the pedestrian, and it does not become law simply because an adjuster included it in a denial letter or settlement offer. An attorney can challenge that percentage with surveillance footage, witness statements, vehicle data, scene evidence, and other information the insurer may not have considered when making its initial decision.
Talk to a Kansas City Pedestrian Accident Attorney About Your Case
When dealing with a personal injury insurance claim, it is crucial to consult with an experienced attorney who can guide and advise you through the claim. Early legal intervention can help protect your rights and improve your chances of compensation. The choice of a lawyer is an important one and should not be decided without careful consideration.
Our legal team is here to help you learn more about your legal options and evaluate the strength of your accident claim. We care about our community and have dedicated our practice to helping injury victims recover justice, accountability, and compensation.
Get started today with your free case evaluation by visiting Brown & Crouppen online or by calling us at (314) 501-9510. Our St. Louis and Kansas City personal injury lawyers have helped clients recover over $1 billion in settlements and verdicts. And remember, there are no upfront costs or legal fees – we only get paid if you win.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still recover compensation if I was jaywalking when I was hit in Kansas City?
Yes. On the Missouri side of Kansas City, crossing outside a marked crosswalk does not automatically prevent you from recovering compensation. You may be assigned a percentage of fault, but the driver’s speed, attention, visibility, and ability to avoid the collision also matter.
Who decides the fault percentage in a pedestrian accident — the police, the insurance company, or a jury?
A police report can be important evidence, but the officer does not make the final decision about civil fault. During a claim, the insurance company may assign a percentage of fault, but that number can be challenged. If the case goes to trial, the jury generally decides how responsibility should be divided.
Does it matter whether my accident happened on the Missouri or Kansas side of Kansas City?
Yes. Missouri uses pure comparative fault, so you may still recover compensation even if you were partly responsible, although your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault. Kansas follows a different rule, and in a typical case involving one pedestrian and one driver, being found 50% or more at fault may prevent you from recovering compensation.
