Las Vegas Pedestrian Accident Attorneys

In most cases, yes. Where you were crossing affects how fault is divided; it does not automatically end your claim.

This is the single most common reason injured pedestrians never call a lawyer, and it rests on a misunderstanding of two things: what counts as a crosswalk, and what “jaywalking” actually means in Nevada today.

Most intersections have a crosswalk even with no paint on the ground. Under NRS 484A.065, a “crosswalk” includes the part of the road at an intersection that connects the sidewalk lines on either side, whether or not it is marked with lines. So if you were crossing at a corner, you were very likely crossing in a legal crosswalk, even if there was no painted box, no signal, and no sign. People describe this as “jaywalking” all the time when, legally, it was nothing of the kind.

Jaywalking is no longer a crime in Nevada. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB403, which reclassified crossing outside a crosswalk from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction. Before that change, it carried the possibility of jail time and a fine of up to $1,000; now the penalty is a civil one capped at roughly $100. That matters for your case because of what it means and what it does not mean. It does not mean crossing mid-block is risk-free or always permitted. It does mean that an insurance adjuster who says “you were jaywalking, so you get nothing” is not stating a rule of law; they are making a comparative-fault argument designed to reduce or eliminate the payout.

The difference between a legal bar and a fault argument is the whole case. A legal bar ends the claim. A fault argument is a negotiation about percentages, and in Nevada the math of those percentages usually still leaves room to recover.

Partial fault reduces what you recover; it does not erase your claim unless your share is the larger one.

This is where the “you were in the wrong place” argument actually gets resolved. Nevada uses modified comparative negligence under NRS 41.141. The statute does not contain the number “51%”; what it says is that a plaintiff may recover as long as their negligence “was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence” of the parties they are suing. The practical translation: if your share of the fault is greater than the combined fault of the parties you sue, you recover nothing. If it is not greater, you recover, reduced by your own percentage.

Two points commonly get this wrong, both in the reader’s favor:

Consider a hypothetical. A pedestrian crosses at an intersection corner with no painted lines, against a “Don’t Walk” signal, and is struck by a driver who was going well over the limit and looking at a phone. An insurer might argue the pedestrian was substantially at fault for the signal. But because the corner is still an unmarked crosswalk, the driver still owed a yield duty and a separate duty of due care, and the speeding and distraction weigh heavily on the driver’s side. A jury could assign meaningful fault to the pedestrian and still leave recovery intact, reduced by the pedestrian’s share. This is a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes only. Actual case outcomes depend on specific facts, evidence, and circumstances.

There is one more duty most readers never hear about. Under NRS 484B.280, a driver must exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, must sound the horn when necessary, and must use proper caution upon seeing a pedestrian on or near the road, regardless of who had the right of way. So even in the case where you genuinely did not have the right of way, the driver’s failure to pay attention and avoid you remains part of the fault picture. “He darted out” is not only an adjuster’s story: NRS 484B.283(1)(b) tells a pedestrian not to leave a curb or other place of safety and walk into the path of a vehicle that is so close the driver cannot yield. It is not the end of the case either, because the driver’s duty of due care applies at the same time and both go into the comparison of fault, which bars recovery only if your negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant, or the combined negligence of the defendants you are suing.

A pedestrian claim is won or lost less on the statute than on the evidence and the story attached to it, and the adversary moves first. In the days after a crash, an adjuster for the driver’s insurer will often call “to check on how you’re doing.” It is a friendly call with a specific purpose: to lock in a recorded statement before you have legal advice, and to seed the “darting out” or “out of the crosswalk” narrative. Questions are calibrated to produce damaging admissions: where exactly were you, were you looking at your phone, are you feeling better today (used later to minimize injuries).

Meanwhile, the evidence that would establish what actually happened is on a timer:

This is why “I’ll just deal with it later” is the costliest mistake in a pedestrian case. By the time the medical picture is clear enough that the bills feel urgent, the footage that would have shown the driver running the signal may be gone. The earlier the preservation requests go out, the more of the real story survives. Until you have spoken with someone on your side, it is reasonable to decline to give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurer.

Pedestrian claims sit within the firm’s broader Las Vegas personal injury practice.