This accident involved a tragic car versus pedestrian accident, wherein Defendant
recklessly ran through the crosswalk, at a residential intersection, and struck Plaintiffs in
the middle of the crosswalk. As a result of the collision, the entire family sustained severe
injuries.

At the time of the accident, all four (4) plaintiffs were crossing the intersection in a
marked crosswalk. Defendant was traveling southbound delivering pizza for his employer,
and claimed that he did not see any of the plaintiffs. A witness was traveling northbound
and approaching the subject intersection when he noticed the Plaintiff’s family entering the
crosswalk from the northeast corner and walk westbound. The witness noticed that
Defendant did not appear to see the Plaintiffs so he began to honk his horn to warn of the
accident. Defendant nevertheless failed to notice the entire family and struck the entire
family in the crosswalk.

Plaintiffs’ minor daughter testified that her parents had taught her to always look
both ways whenever crossing the street. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that on the day
of the accident prior to entering the crosswalk, she looked both ways and only saw a
vehicle at a far distance. Plaintiff’s daughter further testified that she had no warning
whatsoever prior to being struck.

Defendant was traveling at the rate of speed of 30-35 mph through a residential
intersection with a speed limit of 25 mph when he struck the entire family. Defendant
admitted to the reporting officer that prior to reaching the subject residential intersection,
he noticed another vehicle traveling the opposite direction with its high beams on which
caused him to “squint and reduce his vision”. Defendant further admitted that as he
approached the intersection, traveling at 30-35 mph, he then heard something strike the
front of his vehicle and then shatter his windshield.

California Vehicle Code § 21950. Right-of-way at crosswalks provides:
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an
intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his
or her safety. No pedestrian may 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. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or
unmarked crosswalk.
(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked
crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or
take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to
safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising
due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any
unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

 Defendant blamed the witness for flashing his high beams to alert him and also tried
to blame the City claiming an unsafe crosswalk.

This action involved a claim against Defendant City of Los Angeles for maintaining a dangerous crosswalk at the intersection of Abbot Kinney Boulevard and Rialto Avenue
as well as a claim against Defendant car driver for colliding into Plaintiff, a pedestrian, while she was crossing the crosswalk.

 Plaintiff was crossing at the subject intersection in a marked crosswalk, crossing from the east to west. As a result of the brain injury sustained as a result of the car
accident collision, Plaintiff had no memory of the accident. However, Plaintiff’s had crossed at the subject location many times before and was aware of her custom and habit
in crossing the intersection. Witness accounts of the accident confirmed that Plaintiff followed her standard custom and practice when crossing on the day of the accident.

At the time of the accident, Plaintiff had stopped and waited for traffic to stop. A car had stopped in the number one (1) southbound lane of Abbot Kinney Boulevard preparing
to negotiate a left turn. Plaintiff then proceeded into the intersection at the same time the defendant car driver was traveling southbound on Abbot Kinney Boulevard at approximately 30 mph. As Defendant car driver came around a blind curve on Abbot Kinney immediately before the subject crosswalk at Rialto, he swerved to avoid the left
turning vehicle and accidentally struck Plaintiff in the crosswalk. The impact threw Plaintiff approximately 30 feet.

Plaintiff contended that the intersection at question had been the subject of numerous prior complaints and eighteen reported accidents. The City’s internal records
only reflect eighteen prior accidents. However, the City’s records were fatally flawed. Numerous witnesses that worked adjacent to the subject accident have stated under
penalty of perjury that there aware of approximately twelve accident every year and near misses occurring everyday. The Defendant’s records did not reflect any fatal accidents,
however, independent investigation revealed at least three fatal accidents at the location.

The problem with the intersection was that the cross-walk was placed immediately after a “blind” corner. A driver traveling southbound on Abbot Kinney had only 165 feet of
travel from the time they see the intersection until the time they cross the intersection. The posted speed limit was 30 mph and most drivers travel at a speed in excess of 30 mph
through this location. If you assume an average speed of 40 mph and a standard perception reaction time of 2.5 seconds, the intersection was fatally dangerous. The
average driver will travel approximately 150 feet if they break immediately upon seeing the crosswalk. If there was any hesitation, the pedestrian would be involved in a pedestrian
vs car accident. The major problem was seeing the pedestrian in the crosswalk soon enough to begin braking. The speed and time ratios did not satisfy the City of Los Angeles’
own internal standards for a safe crosswalk. Numerous letters were obtained in discovery from the City’s own files where citizens had written letters to warn the City the subject
intersection was extremely dangerous and that people would be seriously hurt or killed if changes were not made. The city’s response was to paint a higher visibility crosswalk.
The visibility of the crosswalk had nothing to do with the blind corner and short lines of sight. The issue never was the inability see the painted lines of the crosswalk, the problem
always was the inability to perceive a person crossing the street within sufficient time to avoid an impact. Plaintiff contended that the City should have installed a flashing indicator
to warn motorist prior to the corner when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. This type of warning system was used throughout the adjacent City of Santa Monica with success. In
fact blinking pedestrian warning signals were used successfully at numerous locations less than a mile from this one.