united-states california liability traffic vehicle
Do pedestrians have the right of way in parking lots?
<p>Consider a parking lot, such as this one:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/qXVy9.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/qXVy9.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>specifically, its one-way lanes. If a pedestrian is crossing them, does he have the right of way?</p>
<p>If a car hits a pedestrian there, is there a conceivable scenario where it might not be found to be at fault?</p>
<p>Asking about California, if this matters.</p>

<p>There is no statutory statement in the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=11.&amp;chapter=5.&amp;lawCode=VEH" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vehicle Code</a> which addresses the question: there are provisions regarding &quot;roadways&quot;, intersections and marked crosswalks, and no provision that says &quot;everywhere&quot;. The determination of liability then reduces to general principles of liability and negligence, which are very fact-centric. An example of a scenario where the driver is not at fault is when the driver is driving down the lane at an appropriate speed and a pedestrian leaps into the lane from behind a parked car (is obscured by the car) right in front of the car. The question that the courts would ask is whether the driver was using ordinary caution (watching for pedestrians or cars backing out), and could have reasonably stopped. See <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/36/supp754.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">People v. McLachlan</a>, where some pedestrians had crossed the roadway and then the</p>
<blockquote>
<p>pedestrians suddenly leaped backward to the west, directly in front of
defendant's car, which was then 20 feet from them</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and he hit them. The court reasoned that</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it is clear that when a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk
is so far from the path of an approaching automobile and proceeding in
such a manner that no interference between them is reasonably to be
expected, the driver of the automobile need not wait for it to develop</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;Right of way&quot; is not a carte blanche to act irresponsibly. Even in a marked crosswalk on the roadway (where the driver bears all of the duty of care), there are scenarios where a hyper-cautious driver could not avoid hitting a pedestrian. See <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/1/460.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schmitt v. Henderson</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We do not declare that in no circumstances is a pedestrian crossing a
street under a duty to be alert to danger approaching him from behind</p>
</blockquote>
<p>citing the general rule</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A pedestrian using a crosswalk in obedience to the signals placed
there for the government of both pedestrian and vehicular traffic is
entitled to rely upon others' obeying the law <em>until something occurs
which would place him on notice as a person of ordinary prudence that
the law is being or is about to be violated by another to his danger</em></p>
</blockquote>
