Accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists do follow many of the rules of personal injury law, however there are some key differences with how these cases are handled. These differences are as followed:

• Determining fault is more complex

• Though drivers are typically held at fault, pedestrians and cyclists can still hold some fault if they were J-walking, ignoring traffic signals, etc. California is a comparative fault state which means both parties can share fault and compensation can be reduced accordingly. 

• Injuries are often more severe

• Injuries for cyclists and pedestrians tend to be catastrophic then drivers which leads to higher medical bills, long-term care, pain and suffering, etc. The makes insurance companies are harsher on limited payouts as they would be paying much more. 

• Insurance coverage works differently

• If fault is on the driver, then their auto insurance covers the claim, but if the cyclist or pedestrian is at fault, then their homeowners or renter insurance may apply due to property damage or third-party damage. Some insurance policies include Personal Injury Protection (PIP) which may help cover the cost of the injuries of the cyclist or pedestrian, even if the driver was at fault.  

• Evidence

• These accidents typically lack vehicle damage so attorneys rely more on surveillance footage, witnesses, accident reconstruction, physical injuries, skid marks, and police body cam footage in order to assess who’s at fault.