A pedestrian struck by a drunk driver can suffer devastating injuries in seconds. Anand Desai Law Firm helps injured Californians pursue compensation after DUI pedestrian accidents involving impaired, reckless, or intoxicated motorists. California law prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and additional criminal provisions apply when impaired driving and another unlawful act or neglected driving duty cause bodily injury.
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.
A pedestrian DUI claim can involve two separate proceedings: the government’s criminal case against the driver and the injured pedestrian’s civil claim for compensation. A criminal case may address punishment for impaired driving, while the civil case focuses on responsibility for the victim’s injuries and losses. California practitioners specifically distinguish these two processes in DUI pedestrian cases.
Law Desai can investigate evidence relevant to the civil claim while criminal proceedings are underway.
Important evidence may include:
California Vehicle Code §23152 makes it unlawful to drive while under the influence of alcohol and separately prohibits driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher for ordinary motorists.
Intoxication alone does not answer every civil-liability question. The investigation should also determine how the collision occurred.
Evidence may show that the driver:
When an intoxicated person drives and also commits an unlawful act or neglects a driving duty that proximately causes bodily injury, Vehicle Code §23153 addresses DUI causing injury.
Pedestrian DUI accidents frequently happen near:
Nearby surveillance or traffic cameras may capture the driver’s behaviour before or during the collision.
Pedestrian collisions can produce severe trauma because the person has little physical protection from the striking vehicle.
Potential injuries include:
California pedestrian and DUI accident firms regularly address catastrophic injury and long-term medical consequences in these claims.
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.
California Vehicle Code §23152 contains several DUI prohibitions.
For most drivers, the law provides that:
Different BAC thresholds apply to certain commercial drivers and drivers carrying passengers for hire.
The civil injury claim, however, should focus not merely on whether a driver was arrested but on whether negligent or wrongful driving caused the pedestrian’s injuries.
Vehicle Code §23153 specifically addresses circumstances where an impaired driver also commits an unlawful act or neglects a legally imposed driving duty and that conduct proximately causes bodily injury to another person.
For a pedestrian accident, that additional conduct could potentially involve facts such as:
The specific criminal charge is determined by prosecutors and should not be assumed merely because the driver was suspected of intoxication.
California Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires motorists to yield to pedestrians crossing within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Drivers approaching pedestrians in those crosswalks must also exercise due care and take appropriate action to safeguard them.
The statute also requires pedestrians to use due care and prohibits suddenly entering the path of a vehicle that is so close as to create an immediate hazard.
Therefore, even in a DUI case, evidence concerning:
may still matter.
Potentially, yes.
When an intoxicated driver’s negligence causes a pedestrian injury, the injured person may pursue a civil claim for legally recoverable losses.
The existence of a criminal DUI case does not replace the civil claim. California DUI pedestrian practitioners specifically explain that civil and criminal proceedings are separate and that civil evidence may remain relevant regardless of how the criminal case ultimately concludes.
The civil case can potentially seek compensation for:
A criminal conviction is not necessarily required before an injured pedestrian can pursue a negligence claim.
Civil liability is evaluated separately.
Evidence may include:
California DUI pedestrian attorneys expressly note that a civil case can proceed separately from a criminal prosecution.
Potentially, but punitive damages are not automatic simply because alcohol was involved.
California Civil Code §3294 permits punitive or exemplary damages in a non-contract action when the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. The statute defines malice to include certain despicable conduct carried on with willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others.
Accordingly, a DUI pedestrian case should examine evidence relevant to the driver’s knowledge and conduct rather than promising that punitive damages will always be awarded.
Potentially relevant facts may include:
Law Desai’s existing car-accident content also identifies drunk driving as an example of conduct that may support punitive damages under §3294 depending on the evidence.
These are different types of damages.
Compensatory damages are intended to address the victim’s actual losses, potentially including:
Punitive damages serve a different purpose: punishment and deterrence when the heightened requirements of Civil Code §3294 are satisfied.
An injured pedestrian does not have to choose one instead of the other when punitive damages are legally available; they serve separate functions. California DUI pedestrian practitioners likewise distinguish compensatory recovery from potential punitive damages.
California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.4 provides a potentially important rule.
When a civil damages action is based on a defendant’s commission of a felony for which that defendant has been convicted, the court may, upon motion, award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff against that convicted defendant.
That does not mean attorney’s fees are automatically recoverable in every DUI case.
The statute requires:
Whether it applies should be evaluated after reviewing the actual criminal charges and outcome.
Tell Law Desai:
The investigation may include:
After liability, insurance coverage, and damages are evaluated, compensation may be pursued through settlement negotiations or litigation when appropriate.
Law-enforcement records may document:
Chemical-test evidence can become highly relevant when intoxication is disputed.
California’s ordinary adult DUI statute sets the per se threshold at 0.08% BAC, while DUI can also be established under the separate “under the influence” provision irrespective of that numerical threshold.
Potential sources include:
Witnesses may have observed:
The criminal proceeding may produce evidence relevant to the civil case, particularly if a felony conviction eventually occurs and §1021.4 becomes relevant.
An impaired driver may fail to recognise or respond to a pedestrian crossing lawfully.
Vehicle Code §21950 requires yielding and due care in covered crosswalk situations.
An intoxicated driver may:
Impairment can contribute to:
Many DUI incidents occur during evening or nighttime hours, when visibility may already be reduced. DUI accident firms frequently address impaired driving together with visibility, delayed reactions, and severe pedestrian injuries.
Some impaired motorists flee after a crash.
When that happens, evidence may include:
The exact insurance requirements for an unidentified hit-and-run claim can be technical and should be evaluated using the victim’s policy and California insurance law.
The intoxicated driver is generally the central defendant when negligent driving causes the pedestrian’s injuries.
In some circumstances, separate theories involving vehicle ownership or entrustment may need to be investigated. Whether another person can be liable depends on the facts and the specific legal theory asserted.
If the driver was working at the time of the accident, employment relationships and scope-of-employment issues may need review.
California sharply limits liability based merely on furnishing alcohol.
Civil Code §1714 states that, generally, consumption rather than furnishing alcohol is treated as the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, and it also gives broad protection to social hosts subject to a limited statutory exception.
Therefore, a bar or restaurant should not automatically be listed as liable simply because it served the driver.
Usually this issue is much narrower in California than many people assume.
Civil Code §1714 generally provides that furnishing alcohol is not treated as the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by an intoxicated person; consumption is. Social hosts also generally cannot be held liable for third-party injuries resulting from alcohol they furnish.
One statutory exception applies when a parent, guardian, or other adult knowingly furnishes alcohol at their residence to a person they know or should know is under 21. Under those circumstances, furnishing may potentially be treated as a proximate cause of resulting injury or death.
Other limited statutory alcohol-liability rules may also apply in particular circumstances, so this issue should be evaluated carefully rather than promising a claim against the establishment.
Potential brain injuries include:
Pedestrian trauma can cause:
Common fracture locations may include:
High-energy impacts can cause damage to organs and internal structures.
Pedestrians can be pinned beneath or against vehicles or other objects.
Roadway contact, surgery, lacerations, and facial trauma can lead to permanent scars or disfigurement.
Serious and permanent injuries are a central damages issue in California DUI accident claims.
Compensation depends on the specific injury, evidence, insurance coverage, liability, and other facts.
Potential costs include:
Severe injuries may require:
An injured pedestrian may be unable to work temporarily or permanently.
Long-term injuries can affect future employment and earning ability.
A personal-injury claim may also include legally recoverable non-economic losses associated with the physical and personal consequences of the injury.
These may potentially be pursued when the evidence meets the heightened requirements of Civil Code §3294.
Serious pedestrian injuries can exceed available liability limits.
The investigation should therefore determine all potentially applicable sources of coverage.
These can potentially include:
Coverage is policy- and fact-specific, so individual policies should be reviewed before promising a particular source of recovery.
A pedestrian may have potential uninsured-motorist coverage through an applicable auto insurance policy depending on the policy language and circumstances.
California pedestrian practitioners specifically identify uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage as a potential recovery source in some pedestrian crashes.
The policy should be reviewed carefully because coverage requirements and exclusions can apply.
A driver’s intoxication does not necessarily prevent the defense from raising arguments about pedestrian conduct.
For example, the insurer might allege that the pedestrian:
Vehicle Code §21950 itself imposes duties on both motorists and pedestrians in crosswalk situations while preserving the driver’s obligation to use due care.
Accordingly, the entire collision should be evaluated from objective evidence.
If you are physically able after the accident:
California DUI accident guidance similarly emphasizes calling law enforcement, documenting the scene, preserving witness information, obtaining medical care, and keeping records.
A fatal DUI pedestrian collision may support a California wrongful-death action when the statutory requirements are met.
Code of Civil Procedure §377.60 identifies who may assert a wrongful-death claim, including the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, certain heirs, and specified dependent persons under the statute.
Potential wrongful-death damages depend on the circumstances and should be evaluated individually.
If the death resulted from a homicide for which the defendant was convicted of a felony, Civil Code §3294(d) contains a specific provision concerning exemplary damages in an action arising from the death.
Because wrongful-death and survival damages have important distinctions, attorney review is particularly important before publishing broad claims about punitive damages after a fatal DUI.
No. They are separate legal proceedings.
The government prosecutes the criminal case.
The injured pedestrian brings the civil damages claim.
California DUI pedestrian practitioners explain that dismissal or acquittal in a criminal matter does not automatically determine the civil case because the proceedings have different purposes and standards.
However, evidence generated during the criminal investigation may be highly relevant to the civil claim.
Not automatically.
A civil claim has its own deadlines, evidence-preservation concerns, and insurance issues.
Waiting too long may allow:
The relationship between parallel criminal and civil proceedings should be handled strategically on a case-by-case basis.
California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 generally provides two years to bring an action for injury or death caused by another person’s wrongful act or neglect.
Different deadlines and procedures can apply in particular situations.
For example, another defendant such as a public entity could trigger separate claim requirements.
Because the criminal DUI case does not stop every civil deadline automatically, injured pedestrians should not assume they can wait for the criminal prosecution to finish before addressing the civil claim.
Potentially. If the driver’s negligence caused your injuries, you may pursue a civil personal-injury claim regardless of the separate criminal DUI prosecution.
For ordinary adult motorists, Vehicle Code §23152 prohibits driving with a BAC of 0.08% or higher and separately prohibits driving while under the influence of alcohol. Different thresholds apply in specified situations.
Vehicle Code §23153 addresses an impaired driver who also commits an unlawful act or neglects a driving duty that proximately causes bodily injury to another person.
Not necessarily. The civil claim and criminal prosecution are separate proceedings.
Potentially, but not automatically. Civil Code §3294 requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice before punitive damages may be awarded.
Potentially. CCP §1021.4 permits a court, upon motion, to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a damages action based on a felony for which the defendant was convicted.
Usually not merely because it served alcohol. California Civil Code §1714 generally treats consumption rather than furnishing alcohol as the proximate cause and limits social-host liability, subject to narrow statutory exceptions.
California Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks at intersections and to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
Pedestrian conduct can still be considered. Vehicle Code §21950 requires pedestrians to use due care while also maintaining the driver’s duty to safeguard pedestrians.
Police investigation, surveillance footage, witnesses, physical evidence, and potentially applicable insurance coverage should be investigated immediately.
Applicable uninsured-motorist coverage may potentially provide another recovery source depending on the insurance policy and facts. DUI pedestrian practitioners identify UM/UIM insurance as relevant in some such cases.
California’s wrongful-death statute permits specified surviving family members and other qualifying persons to assert a claim when a death is caused by another’s wrongful act or neglect.
California’s general personal-injury and wrongful-death limitations provision is two years, although special circumstances can create different deadlines.
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