What is the current state of the law on driver's failure to see pedestrians?

point. He was not slowing down, nor did he have control of the car that would have enabled him to stop quickly if it should become necessary to do so in order to avoid an accident. He should have been especially cautious in approaching the safety zone and should have anticipated the presence of persons waiting for a car. He did not do this, but took a chance that no pedestrian would get in his way. His failure to see the pedestrian was unexplained. There are, of course, conditions in which it is difficult for motorists to see pedestrians on the streets, but the conditions here were not shown to have been unusual, and the only reasonable explanation of defendant's failure to see the decedent is that he was not exercising even the slightest degree of care." (People v. Leitgeb, supra, 77 Cal.App.2d at pp. 769-770.)

Following Leitgeb was a case involving a driver who hit a group of 10 people gathered in a crosswalk responding to the victim of an earlier accident: "It is unnecessary to review the evidence for the purpose of pointing out wherein it was sufficient to justify a finding that defendant was not driving in the exercise of ordinary care or in the fulfillment of her duties as defined in the instructions. It is not surprising that the jury determined from the evidence that in causing the death of three people and injury to seven others, defendant was not driving with the care usually exercised by persons of ordinary prudence and caution. There was nothing to obstruct her vision or to excuse her failure to see the crowd in the street ahead of her. It was an inescapable conclusion that she failed to see them in time to avoid them only because she was paying little or no

Page 14

attention to what lay ahead of her." (People v. Wilson (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 108, 118-119.)

Another case citing Leitgeb held: "And where a driver did not see his victim until the instant of impact or not at all, he is guilty of gross negligence or of an entire indifference to those who were using the street or highway simultaneously with him. (People v. Leitgeb, 77 Cal.App.2d 764, 769.)

". . . There is no fact proved or theory proposed in the record of the instant cause that could reasonably warrant an inference of appellant's freedom from gross negligence. He drove his coupe in the night on a residence and business street at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent, to wit, in excess of 50 miles an hour. By reason of his having thereby killed a person without malice and while committing such lawless act he is guilty of involuntary manslaughter under section 192 of the Penal Code." (People v. Flores (1947) 83 Cal.App.2d 11, 14.)

Inattention was also held to constitute gross negligence in People v. Pfeffer (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 578, 581: "The course of action followed by the defendant at the time in question demonstrates a complete failure on his part to exercise any care and shows a conscious indifference to the consequences which might follow going through a red signal light at high speedhe obviously had no control over his car and seemingly cared nothing at all for the right of way of others upon the road at the timehe exercised no vigilance and seemingly did not anticipate that there might well be automobiles with passengers therein traveling on Willow Street across Lakewood with the green signal

Page 15