Most people believe a crosswalk is something painted on the road. It is not. Under California law an unmarked crosswalk exists at most intersections whether or not there is a single line of paint, and drivers owe pedestrians in it exactly the same duty to yield they owe in a striped one.
This matters because the most common thing an insurance adjuster says after a pedestrian is hit at a corner with no paint is that there was no crosswalk. Usually that is wrong.
What is an unmarked crosswalk?
The definition is in California Vehicle Code section 275, which has not been amended since 1959. A crosswalk is either:
(a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
(b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.
Subdivision (a) is the unmarked crosswalk. Subdivision (b) is the marked one, covered in our guide to California crosswalk laws. The word “unmarked” never appears in section 275 — it shows up later, in the sections that impose duties on drivers.
Read subdivision (a) carefully and it describes something simple. Imagine the edges of the sidewalk extended straight across the road to the sidewalk on the other side. That rectangle is a crosswalk. It exists by operation of law. Nobody has to paint it, and a city cannot make it disappear by declining to.
Where an unmarked crosswalk exists — and where it does not
| Location | Unmarked crosswalk? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary four-way intersection, no paint | Yes | Roadways meet at approximately right angles; § 275(a) applies to every qualifying leg |
| Residential corner with no signal or stop sign | Yes | § 275(a) does not require any traffic control |
| Mid-block, no markings | No | § 275(a) requires an intersection; § 275(b) requires markings |
| Mid-block with painted lines | Yes | § 275(b) — markings alone create a crosswalk anywhere |
| Sidewalk lines projected out of an alley across a street | No | Express exception written into § 275(a) |
| Anywhere the local authority has posted no-crossing signs | No | Final paragraph of § 275 — but it requires actual posted signs |
| Sharply angled or skewed junction | Probably not | § 275(a) reaches only roadways meeting at approximately right angles |
Two points in that table do real work in a contested case.
Signs, not the absence of paint. The only way a local authority eliminates a crosswalk under section 275 is by posting signs indicating no crossing. A defendant who argues there was no crosswalk because there was no paint has the analysis backwards. Ask what signs were posted, and photograph the corner.
“Approximately right angles” is a real limit. Note the asymmetry with section 365, which defines an intersection to include roadways joining at any angle. Section 275(a) is narrower. So there are intersections in California that have no unmarked crosswalk, and how far from square is too far is a question of fact.
What about a T-intersection?
On the face of the statute, yes. A T-intersection is an intersection, the roadways usually meet at approximately right angles, and section 275(a) contains no exception for T-intersections or for a roadway that ends. Any pages telling you otherwise are reading in an exception the legislature did not write.
There is a genuine complication where the through street has no sidewalk on the far side, because subdivision (a) is written entirely in terms of connecting sidewalk boundary lines. If there is nothing to connect to, a defendant will argue there is nothing to prolong. That argument is worth taking seriously and worth having a lawyer evaluate against the specific geometry of the corner.
The driver’s duty to yield — Vehicle Code section 21950
Section 21950 is the core provision, and it treats marked and unmarked crosswalks identically. It now has five subdivisions, (a) through (e); subdivision (e) was added effective January 1, 2023.
(a) The duty itself
“The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”
(b) The pedestrian’s own duty
The right of way does not relieve a pedestrian of the duty of due care. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb and walk or run into the path of a vehicle so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, or unnecessarily stop or delay traffic in a crosswalk. Insurers lean on this subdivision constantly.
(c) Slow down and take care
A driver approaching a pedestrian in “any marked or unmarked crosswalk” must exercise all due care and “reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action… as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.” Note that subdivision (c), unlike (a) and (d), carries no “at an intersection” qualifier.
(d) The subdivision that matters most to an injured pedestrian
“Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.”
In other words: even where the pedestrian was careless, the driver’s duty survives. This is the single most useful sentence in the statute for someone who has been hit and is being told it was their own fault.
Three other statutes that decide unmarked-crosswalk cases
Section 21951 — the vehicle that stops, and the one that does not
“Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.”
This is the multi-lane case: one driver stops and waves the pedestrian across, a second driver in the adjacent lane cannot see them and does not stop. Section 21951 makes that second driver’s conduct a violation, and it expressly covers unmarked crosswalks.
Section 21952 — crossing a sidewalk
“The driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driving over or upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching thereon.” This covers the driver pulling out of a driveway, parking structure, or alley across the sidewalk. It is a general duty and is not limited to any particular kind of exit.
Section 21954 — outside a crosswalk
A pedestrian outside any crosswalk must yield to vehicles “so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.” But subdivision (b) is the counterweight, and it is broad: “The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.” No crosswalk requirement, no immediate-hazard qualifier — any pedestrian, on any roadway.
Is jaywalking still illegal in California?
Partly, and the change that everyone half-remembers did something narrower than they think.
California has never had a blanket ban on crossing mid-block. The nearest thing is Vehicle Code section 21955(a): “Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.” Read the conditions — both adjacent intersections must be controlled, by signals or by an officer. Stop signs are not signal devices. Outside that specific geometry, section 21955 does not apply at all, and a mid-block crossing is governed only by the duty to yield in section 21954(a).
The Freedom to Walk Act
AB 2147, effective January 1, 2023, added the same paragraph to a series of pedestrian statutes including sections 21950, 21954, 21955, and 21956:
A peace officer… shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of this section unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
It did not legalize jaywalking. Every underlying prohibition remains in force and substantively unchanged. What AB 2147 restricted is enforcement — when an officer may stop and cite. It also did not touch section 275, so where unmarked crosswalks exist is exactly what it was before.
The distinction matters in a civil case. Each new paragraph states expressly that it does not relieve a pedestrian of the duty of due care, nor a driver of the duty of due care. So a pedestrian who could not lawfully be cited can still be assigned a share of comparative fault by a jury. Anyone telling you the Freedom to Walk Act means a pedestrian can never be blamed is overselling it.
Daylighting — the 20-foot parking rule
A related change took effect January 1, 2024. Vehicle Code section 22500(n) prohibits stopping or parking “within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or within 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present.”
Note the words marked or unmarked. The rule exists because a car parked hard against a corner hides a pedestrian from approaching traffic until the moment they step out. Where a vehicle was illegally parked in that zone, its position becomes evidence in the collision, not just a parking violation.
If I was partly at fault, can I still recover?
Yes. California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, where the Supreme Court held that contributory negligence “shall not bar recovery, but the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.”
Pure means no cutoff. A pedestrian found 70 percent at fault still recovers 30 percent. Many states bar recovery above 50 percent; California does not. Combine that with sections 21950(d) and 21954(b) — both of which preserve the driver’s duty regardless of the pedestrian’s carelessness — and the “you stepped out, so you have no case” argument is usually a negotiating position rather than a legal one.
Deadlines
Two years from the date of injury for a claim against a private driver, under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.
Six months if a public entity is involved. Government Code section 911.2 requires a written claim within six months of accrual, and after the entity rejects it with proper written notice, Government Code section 945.6 allows only six months from that notice to file suit. A pedestrian case can involve a public entity more often than people expect — a city bus or municipal vehicle, or a claim that the intersection itself was dangerous.
When the intersection is the problem
Government Code section 835 allows a claim against a public entity for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property, where the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk and the entity either created it or had actual or constructive notice in time to fix it. In crosswalk cases that can mean obscured sight lines, inadequate lighting, faded markings, a signal timed too short to cross, or a marked crosswalk removed without the 30-day notice and posting that section 21950.5 requires.
These claims face real defenses, design immunity chief among them, and they run on the six-month clock. They are worth investigating early or not at all.
What to do after being hit in an unmarked crosswalk
- Call 911 and get a police report. Officers often record “no crosswalk” when they mean no paint. That notation will follow the claim, and it is worth correcting early.
- Photograph the corner, not just the damage. The sidewalk on both sides, whether any no-crossing sign is posted, where vehicles were parked relative to the corner, and the sight lines a driver actually had.
- Get witness contact information. In pedestrian cases the accounts diverge immediately and a neutral witness usually decides it.
- Accept medical evaluation at the scene. Head and internal injuries frequently present hours later, and a gap in treatment is the first thing an insurer uses to dispute causation.
- Do not give a recorded statement to the driver’s insurer before speaking with a lawyer.
- Note whether any public vehicle or agency was involved — if so, the six-month deadline is already running.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have the right of way at an intersection with no painted crosswalk?
Yes, in most cases. Under Vehicle Code section 275(a) an unmarked crosswalk exists at intersections where the roadways meet at approximately right angles, formed by extending the boundary lines of the sidewalks across the road. Section 21950(a) requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks alike.
How does a city get rid of an unmarked crosswalk?
By posting signs. The final paragraph of section 275 provides that there is no crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing. Simply not painting lines does not remove it.
Is there an unmarked crosswalk at a T-intersection?
Section 275(a) contains no exception for T-intersections, so ordinarily yes. The harder question arises when the through street has no sidewalk on the far side, since the statute is written in terms of connecting sidewalk boundary lines. That turns on the specific geometry of the corner.
Can I be ticketed for crossing mid-block in California?
Sometimes. Section 21955 prohibits crossing outside a crosswalk only between two adjacent intersections that are both controlled by signals or by police officers, and local ordinances may add restrictions. Since the Freedom to Walk Act took effect in 2023, an officer may not stop you for these violations unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision.
Did the Freedom to Walk Act make jaywalking legal?
No. It limited when police may stop pedestrians. The underlying rules still exist, and a pedestrian who violates them can still be assigned comparative fault in a civil case even where no citation could issue.
A car stopped for me and another car hit me. Who is responsible?
Vehicle Code section 21951 prohibits a driver approaching from the rear from overtaking and passing a vehicle that has stopped at a marked or unmarked crosswalk to let a pedestrian cross. The passing driver is normally the one in violation.
How long do I have to file a pedestrian accident claim?
Two years from the date of injury against a private driver. If a public entity is involved, a written government claim must be presented within six months, and after a written rejection you have six months to file suit.
Hit in a crosswalk in California?
B&D Law Group, APLC represents injured pedestrians throughout California and from our North Las Vegas office. If you were told there was no crosswalk because there was no paint, that is worth a second look. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we recover for you.
This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change. Speak with an attorney about your specific situation.