California Assembly Bill 413 and Potential Claims Against Cars Parked in Violation

Beginning earlier this year, California Assembly Bill (AB) 413 prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk.  The legislative history demonstrates that this statute was enacted with the goal of enhancing pedestrian safety. The bill addresses “daylighting” – a term used to describe the visibility gained when parked vehicles are kept a safe distance away from crosswalks.  The term is derived from the idea that there is no metaphorical (or perhaps actual) “daylight” between an intersection and a pedestrian stepping out if cars are parked too close to the crosswalk.  By clearing this space, pedestrians entering the crosswalk become more visible to oncoming traffic, and drivers can stop before it is too late.

The legislature expects this law to be particularly significant in areas where foot traffic is dense, and the risk of pedestrian collisions is elevated. The bills’ proponents cited studies showing that limiting parking near crosswalks improves sightlines and reduces the number and severity of pedestrian crashes. The law also offers clarity to roadway designers, making it easier to implement and enforce consistent standards across jurisdictions.

With the enactment of AB 413, questions arise about the potential for civil liability if a vehicle is illegally parked within the 20-foot buffer, thereby contributing to an accident involving a pedestrian. In California, a civil tort claim may be viable under a theory of negligence if the illegally parked vehicle is found to have been a substantial factor in causing the accident. If a pedestrian is struck while using a crosswalk and the driver who struck them claims their visibility was obstructed by a vehicle parked too close to the crosswalk, the owner of the parked vehicle could potentially share liability.

However, liability in such cases would be highly fact-specific. To prevail, the injured party would need to demonstrate that the illegally parked car created a foreseeable hazard and that its presence was a proximate cause of the injury.  Courts might also consider whether the driver who hit the pedestrian was driving negligently or whether they had sufficient opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrian regardless of the parked vehicle. In sum, while AB 413 primarily functions as a preventive traffic safety measure, it may also inform the standard of care in negligence actions and shape future tort litigation involving pedestrian injuries near crosswalks.