Vehicle Pedestrian Accident: When New York Allows Recovery

VTL §1146 requires every driver to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian and to sound the horn when necessary. This duty applies even when the pedestrian is outside a crosswalk.

When traffic-control signals are absent or not operating, VTL §1151 generally requires a driver to yield to a pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk, subject to the statute's conditions. The statute also prohibits a pedestrian from suddenly entering the path of a vehicle that is too close to yield safely. An unexcused violation of an applicable safety statute may constitute negligence if the violation was a proximate cause of the collision.

A citation may identify an alleged traffic violation, but its issuance alone does not establish civil liability.

VTL §1152 generally requires a pedestrian crossing outside a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to yield to vehicles. VTL §1156 separately governs pedestrians walking along roadways, including the use of available sidewalks and, where no sidewalk exists, walking on the left side facing traffic when practicable.

A pedestrian who crossed outside a crosswalk, crossed against a signal, or was distracted may be assigned a percentage of fault. Under CPLR §1411(b) as amended in 2026, recovery is barred in a limited circumstance. That bar applies when the pedestrian's culpable conduct is greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons from whom recovery is sought. Damages are reduced by the pedestrian's fault percentage in cases that do not reach that bar.

No-fault PIP benefits cover reasonable and necessary medical expenses and a portion of lost earnings, up to $50,000 in combined basic economic loss. Benefits include 80% of lost earnings subject to a $2,000 monthly cap for up to three years, and up to $25 per day for certain other necessary expenses for up to one year.

Written notice of the claim must generally be submitted within 30 days after the accident. Medical bills must be submitted within 45 days after services are rendered. Proof of lost earnings must be submitted within 90 days after the work loss is incurred, subject to limited exceptions for good cause.

Late notice may jeopardize no-fault coverage unless the delay is supported by a legally sufficient justification. The striking vehicle may be uninsured or unidentified, and neither the pedestrian nor a resident relative may have applicable automobile coverage. In that situation, the pedestrian may be eligible to seek no-fault benefits through MVAIC, subject to its notice and eligibility requirements. Uninsured and hit-and-run claims may involve separate police-reporting and MVAIC notice requirements.

For actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the 90/180-day category was removed from Insurance Law §5102(d). The remaining categories include:

• Death;
• Dismemberment;
• Significant disfigurement;
• Fracture;
• Loss of a fetus;
• Permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system;
• Permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; and
• Significant limitation of use of a body function or system.

The amendment removed one statutory pathway. A nonpermanent injury may still qualify under another remaining category, such as significant limitation of use. Qualification requires competent medical evidence establishing the nature, extent, duration, and accident-related cause of the limitation.

The former 90/180-day category may remain relevant to actions commenced before May 26, 2026.

Subjective complaints alone are generally insufficient to establish a limitation-based serious injury. Medical evidence should identify the nature and extent of the limitation, its objective basis, and its causal connection to the accident. MRI results, orthopedic evaluations, nerve conduction studies, and physician opinions addressing functional loss are the categories of evidence that support threshold eligibility.

Prompt and consistent treatment often strengthens proof of a serious injury. An unexplained treatment gap may be used to challenge causation or severity, although a supported explanation may affect that analysis. Early medical documentation supports a serious injury claim.

A pedestrian may pursue economic loss exceeding basic economic loss through a tort claim, subject to causation, comparative fault, and proof of damages. These losses may include:

• Medical expenses above the $50,000 no-fault limit;
• Lost earnings beyond the no-fault wage cap;
• Future medical costs for ongoing or permanent treatment; and
• Costs of care or equipment related to permanent impairment.

Uninsured motorist claims under the pedestrian's own auto policy, if applicable, may provide coverage. Neither the pedestrian nor a resident relative may have applicable automobile coverage, and the striking vehicle may have been uninsured or unidentified. In that case, MVAIC may provide a remedy subject to its eligibility and notice requirements.

At the scene, photographs of the vehicle, roadway, crosswalk markings, traffic signals, and surrounding area should be taken as soon as possible. Witness contact information should be collected before witnesses leave. Surveillance footage may be overwritten quickly under the owner's retention policy, so preservation requests should be made promptly.

Medical evaluation should occur promptly even when symptoms seem minor, since gaps between the accident and the first medical visit are frequently cited to challenge causation.

Because recovery is barred when the pedestrian's culpable conduct exceeds the defendants' combined fault, the pedestrian's conduct at the time of impact is subject to scrutiny. Documenting scene conditions, signal timing, visibility, and the driver's conduct provides evidence that supports a lower fault allocation to the pedestrian.

Possibly. Recovery remains available as long as the pedestrian's culpable conduct does not exceed the combined fault of the defendants. Whether that allocation exceeds the defendants' combined fault depends on all circumstances including driver speed, attentiveness, and visibility.

Wrongful death claims remain governed by CPLR §1411(a), under which culpable conduct attributed to the decedent reduces damages but does not bar recovery. Death is expressly included in the definition of serious injury under Insurance Law §5102(d). Wrongful death claims are subject to the two-year limitation period under EPTL §5-4.1 running from the date of death, and recoverable damages are governed by EPTL §5-4.3.

Insurance disputes in pedestrian accident cases frequently arise over no-fault coverage denials, causation challenges, and serious injury threshold disputes. An insurer may deny a no-fault claim based on a late filing, an independent medical examination finding, or a determination that treatment was not medically necessary. These disputes can be contested through the no-fault arbitration process or in court depending on the nature of the denial.