WPI 70.03.05 Crosswalk—Definition
6 WAPRAC WPI 70.03.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6 Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 70.03.05 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part VIII. Motor Vehicles
Chapter 70. Motor Vehicles
WPI 70.03.05 Crosswalk—Definition
[A marked crosswalk means any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway.]
[A crosswalk exists at every intersection of roadways, regardless of whether the roadway is marked with crosswalk lines. The crosswalk is an extension of the existing curbing and sidewalks. The width of the crosswalk is from the curbing to the farthest edge of the sidewalk. The crosswalk extends across the roadway to the opposite side curbing and sidewalk.]
[A crosswalk exists at every intersection of roadways, regardless of whether the roadway is marked with crosswalk lines. An intersection is defined as the area where roadways meet and vehicles traveling upon the different roadways may collide. The crosswalk extends across the roadway at the same angle as the roadways meet. The crosswalk is 10 feet wide. It begins at the edge of the intersection and extends 10 feet back from the intersection. [Existing curbing defines the edge of the intersection.]]
NOTE ON USE
Select the appropriate definition or definitions when it will be useful for the jury or when there is an issue of fact as to whether or not a pedestrian was within a crosswalk at the time of the collision. The second paragraph should be used only if the intersection has sidewalks. The third paragraph refers to an unmarked crosswalk on a roadway without sidewalks. The last bracketed sentence of the third paragraph should only be used when there is curbing.
COMMENT
RCW 46.04.160; RCW 46.04.220; RCW 46.04.290; and RCW 46.04.500.
In Krogh v. Pemble, 50 Wn.2d 250, 310 P.2d 1069 (1957), the court held that a statutory crosswalk exists whenever the requirements of RCW 46.04.160 are met. The existence of a marked crosswalk in another location does not act to abrogate the statutory crosswalk. However, local authorities may, with proper and clear signage, prohibit pedestrians from crossing at an area that would otherwise qualify as a crosswalk pursuant to RCW 46.04.160. Hanson v. Anderson, 53 Wn.2d 601, 335 P.2d 581 (1959).
When the markings of a marked crosswalk have been worn away so that they are no longer clearly visible, the crosswalk is no longer “marked” within the meaning of RCW 46.04.290. However, the area will still be treated as a crosswalk if the statutory requirements of RCW 46.04.160 exist. Krogh, 50 Wn.2d at 252–53.
The fact that an intersection is a “T” intersection, or that only one of the crosswalks at an intersection is marked, does not affect the existence of statutory unmarked crosswalks. Krogh, 50 Wn.2d at 252–23. When an intersection involves streets with sidewalks, an unmarked sidewalk exists at the “prolongation” of the sidewalks, even if this does not result in a crosswalk that connects the two sides of the street in a perpendicular line. Coleman v. Altman, 7 Wn.App. 80, 497 P.2d 1338 (1972). The unmarked crosswalk is the extension of the angle at which the roadways meet. McKinney v. Preston Mill Co., 39 Wn.2d 681, 237 P.2d 788 (1951). The lack of sidewalks does not affect the existence of a statutory crosswalk. Krogh, 50 Wn.2d at 252–53.
Prior to 2010, this instruction was numbered WPI 70.03.01.
[Current as of February 2021.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |