On October 1, 2021, Connecticut Governor, Ned Lamont, signed into law Public Act 21-28 (the “Act”), extending the language concerning pedestrian actions when utilizing a marked, uncontrolled cross walk (a crosswalk without a traffic signal to indicate a safe pedestrian crossing or one monitored by a traffic control officer). The Act defines a pedestrian crossing the roadway with a crosswalk as “when the pedestrian (1) is within any portion of the crosswalk, (2) steps to the curb at the entrance to the crosswalk and indicates his or her intent to cross the roadway by raising his or her hand and arm towards oncoming traffic, or (3) indicates his or her intent to cross the roadway by moving any part of his or her body or an extension thereof, including, but not limited to, a wheelchair, cane, walking stick, crutch, bicycle, stroller, carriage, cart or leashed or harnessed dog, into the crosswalk at the entrance to the crosswalk”
This new Act puts the onus of crossing the roadway on the pedestrian. The pedestrian must signal his intent to cross the roadway in a manner that is clear and obvious to drivers already established on the roadway. Motorists as a result, appear to be required to be on the lookout for pedestrians and their body language when approaching intersections with uncontrolled crosswalks. Further, a violation of this law will result in a possible infraction issued to the pedestrian.
In a recent matter, a commercial vehicle approached an uncontrolled crosswalk that connected two sides of a pedestrian/bike trail. The commercial vehicle allegedly yielded at the crosswalk and the driver looked several times both ways to see if there were any pedestrians either already established in the crosswalk or demonstrating an intent to cross. When the driver did not see anyone, the driver proceeded to enter the crosswalk. As he began to proceed, a jogger appeared to dart in front of his vehicle and was knocked over and injured. The vehicle was equipped with a dash camera that recorded the whole incident. The video was provided to the police for their investigation. Upon reviewing the footage, the police determined that the jogger had made no indication to the driver that he intended to cross the roadway. Nor would the driver exercising ordinary care have been able to have noticed the jogger prior to proceeding through the crosswalk. The jogger was issued a citation for violating the Act and found at fault for the accident.
The interpretation of the Act has not yet been settled by the courts. Given that the language proposed by the legislature presents a potentially subjective interpretation, it will be an exercise in judicial discretion to see how the courts will interpret what may be the standard for a pedestrian in an uncontrolled crosswalk that he or she made a sufficient indication to motorists of their intent to cross the roadway via a crosswalk. Will the courts interpret the Act as indicating a higher burden on pedestrians to signal motorists? Or will the courts see this Act as placing another requirement on motorists to divine the intent of a pedestrian as to whether the pedestrian is signaling an intention to cross the roadway? As with any recent law, it will take time before the courts take up the issue. If the courts see this as putting a higher burden on the pedestrian, we may be able to shift liability onto the pedestrian in future civil litigation or at least lead a jury to place a higher contribution for any associated injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident with pedestrians.