CNA Explains: Who's to blame in accidents involving motorists and jaywalkers?

SINGAPORE: In November, a video making the rounds on social media showed a woman crossing the road despite a red man signal.

In-car camera footage captured her being hit by the vehicle, and tumbling to the ground.

Earlier in 2024, a driver was jailed for two months and disqualified from driving for eight years after he hit and killed a teenager - who was similarly crossing the road against a red traffic light signal for pedestrians.

Who's responsible in an accident between motorists and road users? 

The initial questions will be on who caused the accident and who has the right of way, DL Law Corporation legal associate Ganesan Nachiappan said. 

Liability - or in layman terms, who bears the blame - is determined upon assessing such circumstances leading to the accident.

"Even when the pedestrian is at fault, a portion of the liability is still assigned to the driver, as drivers have a duty of care to other road users," he said. 

Factors to be considered include whether the motorist was speeding or keeping a proper lookout as well as obeying traffic rules.

While pedestrians in general bear less liability, they may take on more in cases where their actions contributed to the accident, Mr Ganesan added. 

For instance, when the red man sign is on and pedestrians proceed to cross the road, they are instantly accepting liability as they are putting their lives and other road users' lives at risk, he pointed out. 

"Factors taken into account include the point in time or location of the pedestrian when the driver’s vehicle collides with the victim," he said.

"If the pedestrian has just stepped off the kerb when the red man sign is on, the liability is, in most cases, against the pedestrian."

A 2004 High Court judgment, on the case of a motorcyclist that knocked down and killed a jogger, sums it up. 

"A user of our roads is always under a duty to keep a lookout. A failure to do so will invariably be viewed as negligence or contributory negligence on his part," said then-Judicial Commissioner V K Rajah.

"This failure may be mitigated if it can be shown that the danger was concealed from him or that there were special circumstances allowing or inducing him to relax the normal standards of vigilance."

What if the accident was at a signalised crossing? 

Even if the traffic light is green in drivers' favour, they still need to look out for pedestrians, said lawyer Amarjit Singh, the owner of Amarjit Sidhu Law. 

"(Especially) if evidence shows that the pedestrian - no matter how errant - was in the driver’s view and that the driver could react in time to stop or avoid him," he added.

The same applies even if the pedestrian crosses a few metres shy of the signalised crossing.

Conversely, pedestrians crossing on a green man signal can also bear a portion of the blame in the event of an accident. 

In a significant 2016 judgment, the Court of Appeal held that pedestrians still have to check for oncoming traffic even if traffic signals are in their favour. 

The case in question involved a driver who hit a pedestrian crossing the road with the green man signal on and thus had right of way.

While the High Court found the driver fully to blame, upon appeal, two out of three judges felt that pedestrians should take charge of their own safety. They assigned 15 per cent of the blame to the pedestrian.

The sole dissenting judge, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, argued then that this meant pedestrians would have to safeguard themselves as if they were jaywalking. 

What if the accident was at an unsignalised crossing?

At zebra crossings and road entrances or openings, pedestrians should have the right of way over vehicles, said lawyer Lim Fang Hui from Avalon Law Corporation, citing the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules.

She listed a few factors affecting liability, such as:

• whether a pedestrian was crossing the road within 50m of or more than 50m from a pedestrian crossing
• whether the pedestrian had kept a proper lookout for oncoming traffic
• whether the pedestrian had dashed across the road suddenly
• whether the driver had kept a proper lookout
• the distance traversed by the pedestrian across the road at the point of impact

Crossing the road within 50m of a pedestrian crossing constitutes jaywalking. 

"If the pedestrian had already crossed a portion of the road, the driver would bear a greater degree of liability as he would have greater opportunity to see the pedestrian," said Ms Lim.

"However, the pedestrian may bear a greater degree of liability if the accident occurred just as he was about to cross or had just started to cross the road as the driver will have less reaction time." 

Lawyers also pointed to a fatal accident where a driver ran over a girl in January. 

The driver said she could not see the 100cm-tall girl crossing the road. The girl had appeared in in-vehicle footage for only a second before the collision occurred. 

"In this instance, the caregiver, who has a duty of care to the victim, was charged," said DL Law's Mr Ganesan. 

"The law is fair in that not every accident is the driver's fault, and pedestrians have a responsibility for their own safety."

Are motorists held to "higher standards"? 

Private hire vehicle driver Eugene Teo, who has been driving for about 20 years, suggested that all road users install cameras where possible.

He told CNA that he slows down and looks left and right when about to go past traffic lights; and that on small roads he usually gives way to pedestrians even in the absence of zebra crossings or traffic lights.

"But I’ll honk if they use phone and cross the road - to wake them up," said Mr Teo. 

Mr Ganesan said that even when a driver has right of way, they have to "assess all circumstances and expect the unexpected".

Past court judgments on road accidents have also referred to the Highway Code, which details the standards all road users should observe.  

"Motorists, being in a position to inflict harm, are undoubtedly the primary target audience of the Highway Code. But the Highway Code also expects pedestrians to exercise care," the three judges said in the 2016 case of the driver hitting a pedestrian with right of way.

In laying out the potential criminal charges motorists could face, the Singapore Legal Advice website stated: "Although the penalties meted out to motorists for fatal traffic accidents may seem unfair, the rationale behind this is that motorists are in a position to cause harm with their vehicles, unlike pedestrians.

As the motorist has been trained to handle "a dangerous machine that can cause harm", the motorist will be held to "a higher standard of care" to prevent an accident, an article on the platform read.

"The onus is thus always on the motorist to take due care and attention in the usage of the roads in Singapore."