Struck Outside a Crosswalk at 70: Proving a Retired Pedestrian’s Case When the Police Report Blamed Her
Adamson Ahdoot LLP resolved a claim on behalf of our client, a 70-year-old woman who sustained pelvic fractures requiring surgery when a commercial delivery vehicle struck her as she crossed a road in Southern California. She was not in a crosswalk. The police report said the collision was her fault. She had no lost wages to claim, and she had a medical history the defense was eager to point to. None of that determined the outcome.
A Morning Walk Across a Four-Lane Road
One morning in October 2025, our client was crossing a straight, four-lane arterial road on foot. She was outside a marked crosswalk. She had already crossed the first lane and was more than halfway across the second when a compact SUV being driven for a commercial delivery company came over the crest of the road and struck the left side of her body with the front of the vehicle, knocking her to the ground.
Paramedics took her to a trauma center. Two days later, she underwent surgery in which screws were placed through her pelvis to stabilize the fractures.
The Injuries and What They Took
The fractures involved multiple bones of the pelvic ring, including the sacrum and the pubic bones. The surgical hardware is permanent. For months afterward, our client depended on a wheelchair and then a walker to move around her own home.
Her recovery has been slow and incomplete. She lives with chronic low back and hip pain that radiates into her legs, and imaging of her lumbar spine showed disc protrusions and nerve-root impingement at several levels. Injections have provided partial relief, and further procedures have been recommended. She also developed dizziness and loss of balance after the collision; testing confirmed a complete loss of function in the balance organ of her right inner ear, an injury her neurologist attributed to the impact. She reports headaches, sleep disturbance, incontinence, and anxiety that were not part of her life before.
Before the collision, she was fully independent. She was not.
The Police Report
The investigating officer’s report assigned fault to our client for crossing outside a marked crosswalk. The officer never spoke with her. She was in the hospital undergoing a CT scan at the time. The narrative rested on the driver’s account, including the driver’s self-reported speed of about 20 miles per hour.
A finding like that in a police report shapes everything that follows. Insurers cite it. Defense attorneys build on it. Injured people read it and conclude they have no case.
Why It Matters: The Video the Report Itself Mentioned
The police report referenced surveillance footage of the collision. We obtained it.
The video showed something different from the narrative. Our client was in the roadway, walking at a normal pace, for several seconds before the delivery vehicle entered the frame. She had already crossed one full lane. At the moment of impact, the lane beside the driver was open, and there was no traffic behind or alongside the vehicle. The driver had room to slow, and room to steer around her. The footage also suggested a speed higher than the 20 miles per hour the driver had reported.
This is where California law does the rest of the work. Vehicle Code section 21954 does require pedestrians outside a crosswalk to yield to vehicles. But subdivision (b) of the same statute states that this does not relieve a driver of the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian on the roadway. A driver who has a clear view of a person in the road for several seconds, an open adjacent lane, and no surrounding traffic is not excused from that duty because the pedestrian was not at a crosswalk.
We contended that the officer’s fault opinion was inadmissible, that it was reached without our client’s statement, and that it was contradicted by the very footage the report cited. Under California’s comparative fault rules, even if a jury assigned our client some share of responsibility, that share would reduce her recovery rather than eliminate it. And on this evidence, we contended it would be modest.
The Employer’s Responsibility
The driver was working, making deliveries for a commercial delivery company, at the time of the collision. Under California’s doctrine of respondeat superior, a company is responsible for the negligent driving of its employees within the course and scope of their work. That principle placed the delivery company, not just the individual driver, on the other side of the claim.
Proving Value Without a Paycheck
Two features of this case are common in claims involving older clients, and both tend to depress the value an insurer initially assigns.
No wage loss. Our client was retired. There were no missed paychecks to add up. But economic loss is only one part of a personal injury claim. The larger part, for a 70-year-old who lived independently and now cannot, is the loss of that independence: the months in a wheelchair, the pain that has not gone away, the balance disorder that makes walking uncertain, and the treatment that lies ahead. We documented each of those elements through her treating physicians, physical therapists, and specialists so that the claim reflected what she actually lost.
Pre-existing conditions. Our client had undergone neurological surgery years earlier, and her spinal imaging showed age-related degenerative changes. We expected the defense to argue that her symptoms were old, not new. The answer was in the records: a documented, active life before the collision; a surgically repaired pelvis after it; and objective testing that tied her balance disorder to the impact. Under California law, a defendant who injures someone with a pre-existing vulnerability is responsible for the harm actually caused, including the aggravation of a prior condition. The defense does not get a discount because the person it injured was 70 rather than 30.
Lessons for Pedestrians Injured Outside a Crosswalk
- Crossing outside a crosswalk does not end your claim. California law still requires drivers to exercise due care for pedestrians on the road, wherever they are.
- A police report’s fault finding is an opinion, not a verdict. It is frequently written without the injured person’s account and can be contradicted by physical evidence.
- Ask for the video, early. Surveillance footage from nearby businesses and homes is often overwritten within days. It can be the most important evidence in the case.
- Retirement does not reduce the value of your injuries. Loss of independence, pain, and the need for ongoing care are compensable whether or not you were working.
- Pre-existing conditions are not a defense to new injuries. The law holds a negligent driver responsible for the harm caused, including aggravation of prior conditions.
This case resolved with a confidential settlement in 2026. This article presents the case in general terms consistent with settlement agreement provisions and California Rules of Professional Conduct. No confidential settlement terms or amounts are disclosed.
About Adamson Ahdoot LLP
Adamson Ahdoot LLP is a personal injury law firm based in Los Angeles, serving clients throughout California. Our attorneys handle pedestrian accident cases, commercial and delivery vehicle collisions, and serious injury matters involving older clients, where thorough medical documentation and careful liability investigation make the difference.
Contact us for a free consultation
