Pedestrian Accident Claims
A pedestrian hit by a negligent driver can bring a personal injury claim against that driver's motor insurer. Being partly at fault doesn't necessarily bar a claim — it can reduce the compensation instead.
What If You Were Partly to Blame?
Direct Answer: Being partly responsible for a pedestrian accident — crossing away from a designated crossing, for example — doesn't usually stop you claiming altogether. A court apportions responsibility between the parties and reduces your compensation to reflect your own share of the blame, a doctrine called contributory negligence.
Highway Code Rule H1, in force since 29 January 2022, sets out a hierarchy of road users: those who can do the greatest harm to others bear the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger they pose, with pedestrians among those most protected by that principle. Under Road Traffic Act 1988 s.38(7), a breach of the Highway Code isn't itself a civil wrong, but it's evidence a court can weigh when deciding whether a driver's conduct fell below what was reasonable.
In practice this means a driver who fails to slow down near a pedestrian crossing or stepping out from between parked cars, or who is speeding, distracted or fails to anticipate a pedestrian's movements, can still be found substantially or wholly at fault even where the pedestrian's own positioning wasn't perfect.
Uninsured and Untraced Drivers
If the driver had no insurance, or failed to stop and can't be identified, a claim may still be possible through the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) — an industry-funded body that exists specifically to compensate victims in these situations. MIB claims follow their own procedure and can carry stricter notification deadlines than the general limitation period, so early advice matters.
What Compensation Covers
General damages compensate the pain, suffering and loss of amenity caused by your injury. Special damages cover your actual financial losses — lost earnings, medical and rehabilitation costs, care needs while you recover, and damaged personal property such as clothing, a phone, or glasses.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still claim if I was partly to blame, like crossing away from a crossing?
Does the Highway Code's hierarchy of road users help pedestrians?
What if the driver who hit me was uninsured or drove off?
Can I claim if I was hit on a pavement or pedestrian area, not a road?
What compensation can a pedestrian accident claim cover?
How long do I have to claim?
You May Also Be Interested In
Personal Injury
The full personal injury claims overview
Read moreRoad Traffic Accidents
RTA claims generally
Read moreCycling Accident Claims
Claims for cyclists hit by a vehicle
Read moreWhiplash Claims
The fixed tariff for whiplash injuries
Read moreFatal Accidents
Claims following a fatal road accident
Read moreWhere this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.
Sources for this page
Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 17 September 2026.
- Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)
The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.
- Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013
Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)
Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.
- The Highway Code — Rule H1 (hierarchy of road users) · in force from 29 January 2022
Places greater responsibility for reducing danger on those who can do the greatest harm (e.g. drivers) toward those most at risk (pedestrians, cyclists). A Code breach is not itself a civil wrong but is admissible as evidence of negligence under Road Traffic Act 1988 s.38(7).
- Road Traffic Act 1988, s.38(7)
A failure to observe the Highway Code does not itself make a person liable, but may be relied on in any proceedings as tending to establish or negate liability.
Who wrote and checked this page
- Written and published by
- Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
- Legal review
- Checked for England & Wales by Edward & Amaury Solicitors — Solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525) (verify on the regulator’s register).Review is recorded against the firm. The individual reviewer is not named on this page.
- Review dates
- Last reviewed 17 September 2026. Next review due 17 March 2027.
Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.