Intersections bring pedestrians into direct conflict with turning cars, distracted motorists, red-light runners, and drivers who fail to yield. Anand Desai Law Firm helps injured Californians pursue compensation after serious pedestrian intersection accidents. Law Desai’s current pedestrian page already identifies intersection crashes as a core pedestrian-accident case type and states that Attorney Anand Desai has 20+ years of legal experience.
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.
Intersection cases frequently become right-of-way disputes.
A driver may claim:
Those statements should be tested against the physical and electronic evidence.
Law Desai’s current pedestrian page states that the firm investigates pedestrian crashes through traffic-camera footage, police reports, accident reconstruction, and witness testimony.
Evidence may include:
Law Desai’s broader intersection page likewise emphasises police reports, traffic-camera footage, surveillance video, witnesses, vehicle damage, skid marks, and accident reconstruction when fault is disputed.
Intersections are often surrounded by:
Surveillance or traffic video may establish:
Law Desai specifically warns that traffic and business-surveillance footage can be overwritten, which makes early evidence preservation important.
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 §21950 provides that a driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, subject to the statute’s other provisions.
The statute also requires an approaching driver to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
However, pedestrians have responsibilities too. Section 21950 provides that a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
This means an intersection case should examine:
rather than assuming fault from a single fact.
A crosswalk does not necessarily need painted lines.
Vehicle Code §21950 expressly covers both:
This is an important issue when an insurance company argues that a pedestrian had no rights simply because there were no painted white lines.
The McClellan Law Firm similarly identifies marked and unmarked crosswalk rights as a central issue in California pedestrian claims.
Having a green light does not give a turning vehicle unlimited right of way.
California Vehicle Code §21451 allows drivers facing a circular green signal to proceed or make permitted turns, but a turning driver must yield to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk. The same pedestrian-yield requirement applies to a driver proceeding under a green arrow.
Therefore:
“I had the green light” does not automatically resolve an intersection pedestrian claim.
The investigation must also determine whether the pedestrian was lawfully crossing and whether the driver properly yielded.
Right-turn-on-red accidents are a common intersection scenario.
California Vehicle Code §21453 generally allows a right turn after stopping at a steady circular red signal unless prohibited, but the turning driver must yield to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to vehicles presenting an immediate hazard.
A right-turn case may investigate whether the driver:
A driver concentrating exclusively on traffic approaching from the left may fail to notice a pedestrian approaching from the right.
California Vehicle Code §21456 regulates pedestrian-control signals.
A pedestrian facing a WALK or walking-person signal may generally proceed across the roadway in the direction of that signal, subject to vehicles already lawfully within the intersection.
The statute also contains specific rules for flashing raised-hand signals and countdown timers.
Signal timing may therefore be critical when a driver or insurer alleges that a pedestrian:
Traffic-camera footage and signal records can help resolve those disputes.
One especially dangerous intersection accident occurs when:
California Vehicle Code §21951 prohibits a driver from overtaking and passing a vehicle stopped at a marked crosswalk or unmarked intersection crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross.
The first stopped vehicle may obstruct the second driver’s view of the pedestrian, making these crashes especially dangerous.
Some pedestrian intersection accidents happen just outside the roadway itself.
A driver may cross a sidewalk while:
California Vehicle Code §21952 requires a driver to yield to an approaching pedestrian before driving over or upon a sidewalk.
This provision can become important when a driveway is located close to an intersection.
California Vehicle Code §21954 generally requires a pedestrian crossing outside a marked crosswalk or qualifying unmarked intersection crosswalk to yield to vehicles that are close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
However, the statute also expressly states that this rule does not relieve drivers of their duty to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
Therefore, an insurer cannot answer every liability question simply by saying:
“The pedestrian was not in the crosswalk.”
Relevant driver conduct may still include:
California also limits parking close to crosswalks to improve intersection sight lines.
Vehicle Code §22500 currently prohibits stopping, standing, or parking within 20 feet of the vehicle-approach side of a marked or unmarked crosswalk, or within 15 feet where a curb extension is present, subject to statutory and locally authorised exceptions.
This rule came from Assembly Bill 413 and was designed to keep the approach to crosswalks clearer of parked vehicles.
For an intersection crash, the presence of a vehicle illegally parked close to the crosswalk may be relevant to visibility, although it does not automatically establish that the parked vehicle owner is legally responsible for the pedestrian’s injuries.
A driver may proceed through a crosswalk while a pedestrian is already crossing.
Vehicle Code §21950 requires yielding in marked and qualifying unmarked crosswalks.
A driver waiting to turn left may concentrate on finding a gap in oncoming traffic and overlook pedestrians crossing the destination roadway.
Law Desai’s current pedestrian and broader intersection pages both identify turning movements as important intersection hazards.
Right-turning drivers may look left for vehicles while failing to check the crosswalk to their right.
Section 21453 requires drivers making a permitted right turn on red to yield to pedestrians lawfully within the adjacent crosswalk.
A driver may be:
Law Desai specifically includes distracted drivers among its pedestrian and intersection accident cases.
A pedestrian may lawfully enter under a WALK signal only to be struck by a driver who enters against a red light.
Steven M. Sweat’s dedicated Los Angeles intersection pedestrian page identifies failure to stop at the limit line or before the crosswalk as a recurring intersection danger.
Excessive speed reduces the time available for a motorist to detect and respond to a pedestrian.
Impairment can affect:
Intersection visibility can be reduced by:
California’s current 20-foot crosswalk parking restriction is specifically aimed at keeping the vehicle-approach side of crosswalks clear.
Tell us:
Law Desai currently offers free case reviews for pedestrian accident claims.
Law Desai can investigate:
The firm describes this same evidence-focused approach on its current pedestrian and intersection pages.
After liability, injuries, and available coverage are evaluated, the claim can be pursued through negotiation or litigation when appropriate.
Video may show:
Nearby businesses may have cameras facing the roadway or crosswalk.
Dashcam evidence can come from:
Independent witnesses may establish:
These can become especially important when both sides claim they had the right of way.
Impact location may help reconstruct the movement of the vehicle and pedestrian.
Police documentation may contain:
Law Desai currently identifies police reports, traffic-camera footage, witness testimony, reconstruction evidence, and vehicle evidence as important tools in intersection claims.
This is a common fault argument.
The evidence should determine:
Vehicle Code §21950 prohibits pedestrians from suddenly entering the path of a vehicle so close as to create an immediate hazard, but it separately requires drivers to yield and exercise due care.
Whether someone truly “darted out” is therefore a factual question—not something determined simply by the driver’s statement.
A green light can permit a vehicle to proceed, but it does not eliminate the duty owed to pedestrians.
Vehicle Code §21451 specifically requires a turning driver on a circular green or green arrow to yield to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or adjacent crosswalk.
Relevant questions include:
A signal changing while the pedestrian is already crossing does not automatically mean the pedestrian violated the law.
Vehicle Code §21456 contains detailed rules covering pedestrians who begin on WALK signals as well as flashing raised-hand/countdown phases.
The exact countdown and signal timing should therefore be preserved and reviewed.
If one vehicle stopped to allow you to cross and another driver passed it, Vehicle Code §21951 may be particularly important because it prohibits overtaking a vehicle stopped at a covered crosswalk for a pedestrian.
Evidence might include:
Pedestrian intersection cases can involve allegations of shared fault.
An insurer might argue that the pedestrian:
California’s jury instructions recognise comparative fault as a defense that can allocate responsibility between a plaintiff and other parties.
Accordingly, possible pedestrian negligence does not automatically mean the driver bears no responsibility. The conduct of both parties needs to be evaluated.
Sometimes the investigation suggests that something beyond the motorist contributed to the accident.
Potential allegations might involve:
A public entity is not automatically liable merely because an intersection could have been designed differently.
California Government Code §835 requires proof that the public property was in a dangerous condition, that the condition proximately caused the injury, that it created a reasonably foreseeable risk, and that either a public employee created the condition through a negligent or wrongful act or the entity had sufficient actual or constructive notice.
If a California public entity may be responsible, special claim requirements can apply.
Government Code §911.2 generally requires a claim relating to personal injury or death against a public entity to be presented within six months after accrual.
That can be relevant when an intersection claim involves allegations concerning:
Because exceptions and additional procedures exist, the actual deadline should be reviewed based on the specific case.
Pedestrians have little protection from the force of a motor vehicle.
Law Desai’s current pedestrian page addresses severe injuries associated with pedestrian collisions and notes that these crashes can have devastating consequences.
Potential injuries include:
Including:
Fractures may involve:
Potential injuries include:
A high-force impact can damage internal organs or cause internal bleeding.
The bumper of a vehicle may strike the lower body first.
Additional trauma may occur when a pedestrian strikes:
Wilshire Law Firm similarly identifies fractures, head trauma, and spinal damage among serious pedestrian injuries.
The compensation potentially available depends on the facts and evidence of the individual claim.
Potential costs can include:
Serious injuries may require ongoing medical or rehabilitation services.
A pedestrian may be unable to work during recovery.
Long-term physical or neurological limitations may affect future employment.
Non-economic damages may address the physical and personal effects of the injuries when legally recoverable.
Law Desai’s current intersection page identifies past and future medical costs, lost wages, reduced earning capacity, and non-economic harm among damages it evaluates in injury cases.
If physically able:
Law Desai emphasises early evidence collection because video, witness information, roadway evidence, and vehicle evidence may disappear or change over time.
California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 generally establishes a two-year limitations period for an action involving injury or death caused by another person’s wrongful act or neglect.
Different deadlines can apply in special circumstances.
Most importantly for some intersection cases, a claim involving a California public entity may generally have to be presented within six months under Government Code §911.2.
Early evidence preservation can be important even when the ordinary lawsuit deadline is still far away.
Law Desai’s current intersection page lists claims involving:
The insurer involved in an individual pedestrian accident depends on the driver, vehicle ownership, and available coverage.
Vehicle Code §21950 generally requires drivers to yield to pedestrians crossing within marked crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks at intersections, subject to the responsibilities and exceptions stated in the law.
Potentially yes. Section 21950 expressly recognises unmarked crosswalks at intersections.
No. Section 21451 requires a turning driver on a green signal or green arrow to yield to pedestrians lawfully within the intersection or adjacent crosswalk.
Generally, a permitted right turn may be made after the required stop, but the driver must yield to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and to vehicles presenting an immediate hazard.
Vehicle Code §21456 contains specific rules for WALK signals, flashing raised-hand signals, countdowns, and pedestrians already in the roadway. The precise signal timing should be reviewed.
Vehicle Code §21951 prohibits passing a vehicle stopped at a marked or qualifying unmarked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross.
Vehicle Code §21952 requires a driver to yield to an approaching pedestrian before driving over or upon a sidewalk.
Section 21954 generally requires a pedestrian outside covered crosswalks to yield to vehicles presenting an immediate hazard, but drivers still have a duty to exercise due care for pedestrian safety.
That assertion should be compared against distance, speed, signals, video, witness statements, braking, visibility, and pedestrian position. Section 21950 contains duties for both drivers and pedestrians.
Visibility may become an important issue. Current Vehicle Code §22500 generally prohibits parking within 20 feet of the vehicle-approach side of a marked or unmarked crosswalk, subject to specified exceptions.
Potentially, but only if the requirements for public-entity liability are met. Government Code §835 requires specific proof concerning the dangerous condition, causation, foreseeable risk, and creation or notice.
Government Code §911.2 generally requires personal-injury claims against public entities to be presented within six months after accrual.
Potentially. Past and future medical expenses can be part of an injury claim when legally recoverable and supported by evidence. Law Desai identifies these losses on its existing intersection accident page.
California’s civil jury instructions recognise comparative fault, which can allocate responsibility among the parties rather than making every case all-or-nothing.
California’s general personal-injury limitations provision is two years under CCP §335.1, although public-entity claims and other special circumstances may involve 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