Pedestrian Accident Complaint - Washington

PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — WASHINGTON

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. General Factual Allegations
4. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
5. Count II — Negligence Per Se / Statutory Violation (Against Defendant Driver)
6. Count III — Negligent Entrustment / Vicarious Liability (Against Defendant Owner)
7. Damages
8. Prayer for Relief
9. Jury Demand
10. Reservation of Rights
11. Signature and Service Blocks
12. Washington Practice Notes
13. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR [COUNTY] COUNTY

NO. [________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (PEDESTRIAN COLLISION)

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [COUNTY] County, Washington, and at all material times was lawfully present as a pedestrian upon or alongside the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an individual residing in [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to CR 4.

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / an LLC] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, leased, and/or maintained the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant and/or employed Driver Defendant. Owner Defendant may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS / REGISTERED AGENT].

4. This action arises under Washington tort law for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a pedestrian, in [COUNTY] County, Washington, on [__/__/____].

5. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this Superior Court pursuant to RCW 2.08.010, as the claims sound in tort and the amount in controversy exceeds this Court's jurisdictional minimum.

6. Venue is proper under RCW 4.12.020(3) because [the cause arose here / an individual Defendant resides here: ____________________]. For a corporation Defendant, state the applicable RCW 4.12.025 residence or tort-county facts: [____________________].

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully crossing / walking [DESCRIBE — e.g., within the marked crosswalk at the intersection of ___ and ___; within an unmarked crosswalk at the intersection of ___; along the shoulder facing traffic on ___], in [CITY], Washington (the "Collision").

8. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] owned by Owner Defendant, traveling [direction] on [ROADWAY].

9. [Where applicable] A pedestrian-control or traffic-control signal [displayed "WALK" / displayed a green light in Plaintiff's direction of travel / was not in place or not in operation], and Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was crossing within the crosswalk. In Washington, every intersection is a crosswalk — marked or unmarked — unless an official sign prohibits crossing.

10. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight; or dusk / nighttime, with Plaintiff in or near a marked crosswalk].

11. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER — e.g., failed to stop and remain stopped for Plaintiff in the crosswalk; turned left or right across the crosswalk into Plaintiff's path; failed to keep a proper lookout and struck Plaintiff; was traveling at an excessive or unsafe speed; was distracted by a mobile device; overtook and passed a vehicle that had stopped at the crosswalk to let Plaintiff cross; ran a red light or stop sign].

12. Plaintiff was plainly visible to Driver Defendant, who failed to see Plaintiff in time, misjudged the situation, and/or failed to exercise the due care that Washington law requires of every driver to avoid colliding with a pedestrian.

13. Plaintiff was exercising reasonable care for Plaintiff's own safety at all material times and had the right-of-way.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected pedestrian struck by the mass and force of a motor vehicle — sustained severe, painful, and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., orthopedic fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, degloving / road rash, and disfiguring scarring].

15. Because a pedestrian has no structural protection, restraint system, or crumple zone, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of vehicles.

16. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

17. All injuries and damages alleged were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein.

19. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the Washington rules of the road, to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians, to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian lawfully within a crosswalk, and to exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon the roadway.

20. Driver Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to stop and remain stopped for Plaintiff, a pedestrian crossing within a marked or unmarked crosswalk;
• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for pedestrians;
• Operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent for the conditions and the presence of pedestrians;
• Driving while distracted, inattentive, or impaired;
• Failing to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian and to sound a warning when necessary;
• Overtaking and passing a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross; and
• Failing to take reasonable evasive action to avoid striking Plaintiff.

21. Each of the foregoing acts and omissions, separately and in combination, was a proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

22. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 7 below.

5. COUNT II — STATUTORY BREACH AS EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.

24. The Washington rules of the road impose specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of pedestrians such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• RCW 46.61.235 — the operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning; and no driver approaching from the rear may overtake and pass a vehicle stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross;
• RCW 46.61.245 — every driver shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing a child or any confused or incapacitated person;
• RCW 46.61.261 — the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian on a sidewalk and to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk; and
• RCW 46.61.050 — drivers and pedestrians shall obey the instructions of any applicable official traffic-control device, including pedestrian-control signals.

25. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

26. Driver Defendant violated [CITE ONLY THE SECTION(S) SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS]. Under RCW 5.40.050, an ordinary pedestrian or roadway-duty breach may be considered as evidence of negligence and is not negligence per se.

6. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT / VICARIOUS LIABILITY (Against Defendant Owner)

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.

28. Owner Defendant entrusted the subject vehicle to Driver Defendant when Owner Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Driver Defendant was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver.

29. Alternatively, at the time of the Collision, Driver Defendant was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant and within the scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

30. Owner Defendant's negligent entrustment and/or vicarious liability was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. DAMAGES

31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, ambulance, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, prosthetics, and long-term or attendant care, to be proven at trial;
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity — past lost income and the permanent impairment of Plaintiff's ability to earn;
• Physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to Plaintiff's personal effects, as applicable.

32. Plaintiff seeks only compensatory damages supported by admissible evidence and authorized by current law.

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• C. Costs and statutory attorney fees as allowed by law; and
• D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

9. JURY DEMAND

Under CR 38, Plaintiff demands a jury trial on issues triable by jury, will serve and file the written demand, and will pay the jury fee by the rule's deadline.

10. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add or substitute parties, to assert additional claims, and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds. Plaintiff denies any contributory fault; under RCW 4.22.005, any such fault diminishes but does not bar Plaintiff's recovery.

11. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

DATED this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], WSBA No. [________]

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

12. WASHINGTON PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in Washington must generally be commenced within three years of accrual. RCW 4.16.080(2). An action is "commenced" for limitations purposes by filing or service, provided the other step occurs within 90 days (RCW 4.16.170). Note the shorter two-year period for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, and slander (RCW 4.16.100), and special rules for minors and claims against governmental entities (RCW 4.96).
• PURE COMPARATIVE FAULT — the governing rule. Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes the recovery in proportion to that fault but does not bar recovery; a pedestrian may recover even if predominantly at fault. The statute displaces all-or-nothing doctrines, including last clear chance. RCW 4.22.070 directs allocation among entities that caused the claimant's damages, including specified nonparties, but excludes entities immune from liability to the claimant under Title 51 RCW; identify every potentially at-fault actor and apply that exclusion.
• The pedestrian's own duties / crosswalk law. Washington's crosswalk law (RCW 46.61.235) requires drivers to stop and remain stopped for pedestrians in marked or unmarked crosswalks, and every intersection is a crosswalk — marked or unmarked — unless an official sign prohibits crossing. Reciprocally, a pedestrian crossing at a point other than a crosswalk must yield to vehicles (RCW 46.61.240); a pedestrian must not suddenly leave a curb into the path of a vehicle that cannot stop (RCW 46.61.235(2)); pedestrians must use sidewalks when available and otherwise walk on the shoulder facing traffic (RCW 46.61.250); and pedestrians must obey traffic-control devices (RCW 46.61.050). These reciprocal duties supply the defense's comparative-fault theory; investigate the precise crossing location, the signal phase, lighting/conspicuity, and vehicle speed. Regardless of right-of-way, every driver still owes the independent due-care duty under RCW 46.61.245.
• Statutory breach. RCW 5.40.050 makes ordinary pedestrian and roadway-duty breaches evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. In a collision case, its enumerated per-se categories include driving under the influence, not ordinary speeding, right-of-way, crosswalk, or lookout violations.
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. A pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own automobile uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage — and under the UM/UIM coverage of a resident relative's policy — even though the pedestrian was not in a vehicle, because pedestrians are typically "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes. Washington UM/UIM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle. Promptly identify and notify every applicable policy, preserve the UM/UIM and any PIP/MedPay claim, and comply with consent-to-settle / subrogation procedures before resolving the liability claim. Verify the current UM/UIM and hit-and-run requirements under the applicable policies and Washington law (RCW 48.22.030).
• Service. Service of process is governed by CR 4 and RCW 4.28; out-of-state defendants may be served under Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185.

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Revised Code of Washington (Title 4 — Civil Procedure; Title 46 — Motor Vehicles) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/
• RCW 4.16.080 (limitations) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080
• RCW 4.22.005 (comparative fault); RCW 4.22.070 (allocation) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.22&full=true
• RCW 46.61.235 (crosswalks) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
• RCW 46.61.245 (due care); 46.61.240 (crossing other than crosswalk); 46.61.250 (pedestrians on roadways); 46.61.261 (yield on sidewalks/crosswalks); 46.61.050 (traffic-control devices)
• RCW 5.40.050 (breach of statutory duty as evidence of negligence)
• RCW 48.22.030 (uninsured/underinsured-motorist coverage)
• Washington Superior Court Civil Rules (CR 4, 8, 38); Washington Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil (WPI)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Washington must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.