A driver only needs to look away for seconds to miss a pedestrian in a crosswalk, intersection, parking lot, or roadway. Anand Desai Law Firm helps injured Californians pursue compensation after pedestrian accidents caused by texting, cellphone use, GPS navigation, eating, passenger distractions, and other forms of driver inattention. California law also restricts handheld wireless-device use while driving.
Get a response within 1 hour.
Verified recovery.
Verified recovery.
Disputed liability.
Disputed liability.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is different.
Distracted-driving cases can appear straightforward until the driver denies doing anything wrong.
A driver may tell police:
Those statements do not have to be accepted without investigation.
Phone records, surveillance video, dashcam footage, witnesses, vehicle-system records, photographs, and other electronic evidence may help determine what the driver was doing before impact. California pedestrian attorneys specifically identify phone records, video, eyewitness testimony, and vehicle data as evidence that can establish distraction.
Potential evidence may include:
Law Desai’s existing distracted-driving page likewise identifies cellphone records, dashcams, surveillance footage, social-media evidence, witnesses, and vehicle-system information as potential evidence.
If the pedestrian was in a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, California Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires the driver to yield. The statute also requires approaching drivers to exercise due care and reduce speed or take other necessary action to safeguard pedestrians.
Important questions can include:
Some of the most useful evidence in a distracted-driving case is electronic.
An early investigation may be important when seeking:
California attorneys handling distracted pedestrian cases specifically emphasize obtaining digital evidence before it is lost or deleted.
Call us or fill out the form. We’ll review your case, explain your options, and answer all your questions — at no cost.
We gather evidence, work with experts, handle the insurance companies, and build your claim for maximum compensation.
We don’t get paid unless you win. 100% contingency fee — no upfront costs, no hidden charges, no risk to you.
Distracted driving is broader than texting.
California’s Office of Traffic Safety describes distracted driving as anything that takes a driver’s eyes, hands, or mind away from driving. Mobile devices remain a major source of distraction.
NHTSA similarly defines it as any activity that diverts attention from driving, including:
For pedestrians, even a brief lapse of attention can be critical because motorists must notice people entering or occupying crosswalks in time to slow or stop.
Distracted driving is commonly divided into three categories.
The driver takes their eyes away from the roadway.
Examples include:
The driver removes one or both hands from controlling the vehicle.
Examples include:
The driver’s mind is focused on something other than driving.
Examples include:
Greene Broillet & Wheeler identifies visual, manual, and cognitive distraction as the three primary forms of distracted driving.
California Vehicle Code §23123.5 states that a person generally may not drive while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic wireless communications device, unless the device is specifically configured for voice-operated and hands-free operation and is used that way.
This is important because distracted driving is no longer limited to traditional texting.
Potential prohibited handheld activity can involve using a device while driving rather than keeping it mounted or operating it in a legally permitted hands-free manner.
The exact application of §23123.5 depends on the driver’s conduct and the circumstances.
Texting can be particularly dangerous because it can combine:
NHTSA states that reading or sending a text can take a driver’s eyes away from the road for approximately five seconds. At 55 mph, NHTSA compares that distance to travelling the length of a football field without looking at the road.
For a pedestrian, those seconds may be the difference between a driver:
A driver can be dangerously distracted without violating California’s handheld-device statute.
Other distractions can include:
California pedestrian attorneys identify GPS, eating, passengers, in-vehicle technology, grooming, and other activities as potential forms of distraction.
Even where no specific cellphone violation can be established, inattentive driving may still support an ordinary negligence claim depending on the evidence.
Pedestrians do not have:
to protect them from an impact.
Nationally, 7,080 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in 2024, and more than 71,000 pedestrians were injured, according to NHTSA.
California recorded 1,106 pedestrian fatalities in 2023, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety’s latest statewide quick statistics.
Distracted driving itself caused or contributed to 3,208 traffic deaths and 315,167 injuries nationally in 2024, according to NHTSA.
A driver who is looking at a phone may not notice someone already crossing.
California Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires drivers to yield to pedestrians within marked crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks at intersections.
Distracted motorists may:
A driver preparing to turn right may concentrate on traffic approaching from the left while failing to check for a pedestrian on the right.
Drivers making left turns can focus on finding a gap in vehicle traffic and overlook someone crossing the destination roadway.
Kalfayan Merjanian identifies turning vehicles as a particular risk because motorists may focus on automobile traffic rather than pedestrians.
Drivers may be distracted while:
Pedestrians walking between vehicles can be difficult to see even when the driver is attentive, making distraction especially dangerous.
A driver exiting:
may focus on approaching vehicle traffic and fail to notice a pedestrian crossing the driveway.
Children can be especially vulnerable because they may be shorter, less predictable in their movements, and concentrated around crossings during arrival and dismissal.
Reduced visibility combined with driver distraction can make pedestrian detection even more difficult.
Crossing outside a crosswalk does not automatically eliminate a pedestrian injury claim.
California Vehicle Code §21954 generally requires pedestrians outside a marked crosswalk or unmarked intersection crosswalk to yield to vehicles that are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
However, the same law expressly states that drivers are not relieved of their duty to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
The case may therefore examine:
This phrase is common in pedestrian claims, but objective evidence may tell a different story.
Evidence can help determine:
Video and electronic evidence can transform a dispute about recollection into a more objective analysis. California attorneys handling these claims specifically use traffic footage, surveillance cameras, phone records, and vehicle data to challenge driver accounts.
Records may help establish whether the phone was being used around the time of the collision.
Depending on the evidence and applicable discovery rules, records might show:
Exterior cameras may show the motorist:
Video from another vehicle may capture both the collision and the driver’s behaviour immediately beforehand.
Another driver, passenger, pedestrian, or nearby worker may have seen the motorist holding or looking at a phone.
Modern vehicles may contain information concerning:
California distracted-driving firms identify these categories of digital and physical evidence when investigating whether a driver was paying attention.
California Evidence Code §669 creates a presumption of failure to exercise due care when four statutory requirements are satisfied.
Among other things, there must be:
The presumption can also be rebutted in circumstances specified by §669.
Therefore, it is more accurate to say that a traffic-law violation may support a negligence-per-se presumption when the statutory requirements are met, rather than saying every cellphone violation automatically proves the entire personal injury case.
Tell us:
Law Desai can investigate:
Law Desai’s broader distracted-driving page currently highlights cellphone records, dashcams, surveillance video, digital forensics, witnesses, and electronic evidence as part of its investigative approach.
Once liability, injuries, insurance coverage, and damages are evaluated, the claim may be pursued through settlement negotiations or litigation when appropriate.
Pedestrian crashes can produce serious or catastrophic injuries.
Potential brain injuries include:
Pedestrians may suffer fractures involving:
Possible injuries include:
A vehicle impact may cause injuries to internal organs and blood vessels.
Pedestrians may become trapped:
Lacerations, road contact, surgery, and facial trauma can result in permanent scars.
California pedestrian firms emphasize that crashes involving unprotected pedestrians can lead to spinal injuries, fractures, brain trauma, and other severe injuries requiring extensive treatment.
Potential compensation depends on the injuries, liability, insurance coverage, and evidence.
Potential costs include:
Severe injuries may require continuing:
A pedestrian may be unable to work while recovering.
Permanent injuries may reduce someone’s long-term ability to work or earn the same income.
Non-economic damages may address the physical and personal effects of an injury when legally recoverable.
California pedestrian accident practitioners commonly identify medical expenses, future treatment, lost wages, diminished earning capacity, and non-economic damages among potential recoveries.
Possibly, but they should not be promised simply because a driver was distracted.
California Civil Code §3294 generally requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice before punitive damages may be awarded. “Malice” includes specified despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard of another person’s rights or safety.
Accordingly, ordinary inattention may not satisfy the standard.
A particularly extreme distracted-driving case may warrant additional evaluation based on facts such as:
Attorney review is essential before alleging punitive damages.
California’s handheld-device statute is broader than traditional texting.
Vehicle Code §23123.5 generally prohibits driving while holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or electronic communications device unless it is configured and used for permitted hands-free operation.
Even when GPS use does not violate a particular statute, a driver’s failure to watch for pedestrians may still be evaluated under ordinary negligence principles.
Not every distraction is prohibited by a cellphone statute.
But safe driving still requires attention to:
NHTSA includes eating, drinking, talking with passengers, and adjusting entertainment or navigation systems within its general definition of distracted driving.
California pedestrian practitioners similarly identify food, passengers, GPS, grooming, and other distractions as potential causes of negligent collisions.
A traffic citation can be useful evidence, but the absence of a citation does not necessarily decide a civil negligence claim.
A pedestrian case may still be investigated using:
The civil case asks whether negligence caused the pedestrian’s injuries, and evidence beyond a citation may be relevant to that determination.
Denial is not the end of the investigation.
Potentially objective evidence may include:
Law Desai’s existing distracted-driving page specifically describes using cellphone records, dashcams, surveillance footage, witnesses, social-media timestamps, infotainment information, and digital evidence when distraction is disputed.
An insurer may argue that the pedestrian was distracted.
That does not automatically answer whether the motorist also acted negligently.
If the pedestrian was in a marked or unmarked intersection crosswalk, Vehicle Code §21950 imposes duties on both the pedestrian and driver. Pedestrians must use due care, while drivers must yield as required and exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
The evidence should therefore evaluate both parties’ conduct rather than assuming a phone automatically determines fault.
If you are physically able:
Competitor guidance for pedestrians struck by distracted motorists similarly recommends emergency assistance, medical evaluation, scene documentation, witnesses, police reports, and early evidence collection.
California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 generally provides two years for an action involving injury to, or death of, a person caused by another’s wrongful act or neglect.
However, special circumstances can create different requirements.
For example, if a public entity is a potential defendant, California Government Code §911.2 generally requires a personal-injury claim to be presented within six months after accrual.
Because digital evidence may disappear much earlier than either deadline, prompt investigation can still be important.
Law Desai’s existing distracted-driving page currently lists experience handling claims involving:
The insurer involved in a particular pedestrian case will depend on the at-fault driver, vehicle ownership, and available coverage.
Potentially. When driver negligence causes a pedestrian collision, the injured person may pursue a civil personal-injury claim. Law Desai’s current distracted-driving page specifically identifies pedestrians and crosswalk crashes among the cases it handles.
Vehicle Code §23123.5 generally prohibits driving while holding and operating a handheld wireless phone or electronic communications device unless it is configured for and used in permitted hands-free operation.
No. NHTSA identifies phone calls, eating, drinking, passengers, stereo controls, entertainment systems, and navigation systems as possible distractions in addition to texting.
Evidence can potentially include cellphone records, video, eyewitness testimony, police reports, social-media activity, vehicle-system data, and other electronic evidence.
It may provide important evidence of vehicle speed, pedestrian position, driver behaviour, braking, and the collision. California attorneys handling distracted-driving pedestrian claims specifically use surveillance footage when proving fault.
Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing in marked crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks at intersections, subject to the duties and exceptions stated in the statute.
Vehicle Code §21954 generally requires pedestrians outside marked or qualifying unmarked crosswalks to yield to vehicles presenting an immediate hazard, but drivers still have a duty to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
Your conduct may become part of the fault analysis. California’s crosswalk statute requires pedestrian due care while separately requiring drivers to yield and safeguard pedestrians under applicable circumstances.
Not necessarily. Other evidence can potentially establish distraction or ordinary negligence even when no citation was issued.
Vehicle Code §23123.5 restricts holding and operating handheld wireless devices while driving, subject to its statutory exceptions. Whether particular GPS use violates the statute depends on how the device was used.
California Evidence Code §669 provides a presumption of failure to exercise due care only when its statutory requirements are satisfied, including causation and the statute’s protective purpose. The presumption can also be rebutted as provided in the law.
Potentially. Lost wages and reduced future earning ability may be compensable when supported by the facts and evidence. California pedestrian attorneys identify past and future lost earnings among potential damages in serious pedestrian cases.
Potentially. Future treatment may form part of the damages analysis when reasonably supported by medical evidence.
Possibly in unusual cases, but they are not automatic. Civil Code §3294 generally requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice.
California’s general personal-injury limitations period is two years under CCP §335.1, although special defendants or circumstances can create different requirements.
Anand Desai is a dedicated personal injury attorney serving Glendale and the greater Los Angeles area. A graduate of Loyola Law School with an undergraduate degree from USC, Anand has been a member of the California State Bar (#249768) since 2007, bringing 20+ years of legal experience to every case he handles.
Anand specializes in personal injury law, with particular expertise in car accidents, motorcycle accidents, truck accidents, and catastrophic injury cases. His deep understanding of California personal injury law, combined with his tenacious negotiation skills, has helped him secure millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts for his clients.
What truly sets Anand apart is his commitment to his community. His firm is one of the only law offices in Glendale that offers services in 11 languages, including Spanish, Armenian, Hindi, Gujarati, Korean, Tagalog, Farsi, Punjabi, Thai, Russian, and English — reflecting the rich diversity of the communities he serves.
“I fight for every client like they’re family. When you hire me, you’re not just getting a lawyer — you’re getting someone who genuinely cares about your recovery and your future.”
Call (833) 270-7800 to schedule your free consultation with Anand today.
Fill out the form and we will contact you within 24 hours. All consultations are free and confidential.
Or call us directly at (833) 270-7800