Pedestrian Hit While Walking on a Road Without a Sidewalk in Ontario
- 4 days ago
- 9 min read
Not every pedestrian collision happens in a crosswalk. In many parts of Ontario, people walk along rural roads, cottage roads, concession roads, residential streets, industrial roads and regional roads where no sidewalk is available. When a pedestrian is hit in that setting, the defence often starts with a simple accusation: the pedestrian should not have been walking there.
Ontario law recognizes that pedestrians may have to walk along a road where sidewalks are not provided. The real issue is usually how the pedestrian was walking, what the driver could see, whether the driver adjusted to the conditions, and whether the collision could have been avoided.
Pedestrian cases where there are no sidewalks present different legal issues than standard intersection cases. This is because there could be no crosswalk, no signal phase, no countdown and no marked crossing area. The important evidence is often with respect to the edge of the road such as the shoulder width, lighting, curves, hills, traffic speed, weather, headlight visibility, clothing, nearby driveways, snowbanks, ditches and where the pedestrian was positioned before impact.
Our Ontario pedestrian accident lawyers represent people injured while walking, including pedestrians hit on roads, shoulders and roadside areas where no sidewalk was available.
Ontario Law on Walking Along a Road Without a Sidewalk
Section 179 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act deals specifically with pedestrians who are walking along a highway where there is no sidewalk.
The section tells us that that if there is no sidewalk on a highway then a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge as possible.
That law is relevant for two reasons. Firstly, it confirms that the analysis is not as simple as saying the pedestrian was on the road and therefore does not have a. The Act specifically addresses how pedestrians are expected to walk when there is no sidewalk.
Second, it provides insurance companies with an argument that if the pedestrian was walking with traffic rather than facing traffic, or was not close to the left edge, they were partially responsible for the collision.
Those arguments need consider in the context of the full scene of the accident A narrow shoulder, snowbank, ditch, parked vehicle, poor road edge, construction area or unsafe surface may explain why the pedestrian was positioned where they were.
By way of example, our firm represented a woman who was walking with traffic on a shoulder when she was struck from behind by a tow truck which had lost control. We were able to demonstrate that the other side of the road was not walkable due to snow encroachment. Additionally, she was unable to walk closer to the edge of the should due a ditch. These facts negated any claim of contributory negligence enabling more fulsome compensation.
Why These Cases Are Different From Crosswalk Claims
While crosswalk cases depend on signals, markings and whether the pedestrian was permitted to cross at that moment. A no-sidewalk case usually asks a different question: what should a careful driver have done when a pedestrian was walking along the road?
A driver approaching a pedestrian on a straight, well-lit road has a different opportunity to respond than a driver cresting a hill in darkness. A pedestrian walking close to the edge of a wide shoulder is in a different position from someone forced into the roadway because the shoulder is covered in snow or drops into a ditch. A road with homes, schools, cottages, bus stops or businesses nearby may also create a stronger expectation that people could be walking in the area.
Driver Lookout on Roads Without Sidewalks
Drivers are expected to watch the road ahead and adjust to the conditions around them. In a no-sidewalk pedestrian case, driver will sometimes try to say that the pedestrian was difficult to see, wore dark clothing, walked too close to the lane, or appeared suddenly. Sometimes those points deserve close review. But they do not end the claim.
However, there also need to be questions ask about what the driver could and should have seen. Was the road straight or curved? Were there streetlights? Were the headlights working properly? Was the driver travelling too quickly for the lighting, weather or road width? Was the pedestrian visible before impact? Did the driver brake, steer, slow down or move over?
Walking Facing Traffic
Walking facing traffic can sometimes be an issue in these cases. The reason for the rule is that a pedestrian facing oncoming traffic will have a better chance of seeing an approaching vehicle and reacting if the vehicle gets too close. A driver also has a better opportunity to see the pedestrian near the left edge of the road.
But this rule needs to take into account the conditions and consider that a person may have crossed to the other side because one shoulder was blocked, snow-covered, unlit, washed out, too narrow or unsafe. A pedestrian may have been walking near a driveway, mailbox, bus stop, parked vehicle or road edge condition that changed the safer route.
Nighttime and Poor-Visibility Collisions
Many no-sidewalk pedestrian collisions happen at night or in poor weather.
The defence will try to focus the discussion on dark clothing, lack of reflective gear or the pedestrian’s location near the roadway. While those facts can be relevant, they should also not be considered in isolation.
A nighttime case also requires a careful review of the driver’s speed, headlight range, road lighting, weather, contrast, nearby businesses or homes, and whether the pedestrian was visible before impact. A driver who cannot see far ahead may need to slow down. A driver on a narrow rural road may need to anticipate that a person, cyclist, animal, stopped vehicle or road-edge hazard could appear within the headlight distance.
Shoulder Width, Snowbanks and Road Edge Conditions
The physical road edge is frequently a large factor in why these collisions occur.
Some Ontario roads have a paved shoulder. Others have gravel, a ditch, a soft edge or no usable shoulder at all. In winter, the space where a pedestrian would normally walk may be reduced by snowbanks, slush or ice. On rural roads, the shoulder may drop off quickly or disappear near culverts, bridges and driveways.
Those conditions can affect both sides of the liability analysis. They may help explain why the pedestrian was closer to the lane. They may also show why the driver needed to slow down, move over where safe, or give the pedestrian more room.
Photographs taken days later may not show the same condition. Snow is cleared, water drains, gravel shifts and tire tracks disappear. Early scene photos are especially useful in these claims.
Was the Pedestrian Allowed to Be There?
On many roads without sidewalks, the answer wil be yes, provided that the pedestrian was walking in accordance with the rules that apply.
Section 179 of the Highway Traffic Act is the starting point where sidewalks are not provided. It does not say pedestrians are forbidden from walking along every road without a sidewalk. It says how they are to walk along the highway in that situation.
Some roadways may have special restrictions, especially where pedestrian access is prohibited by signage or by the type of highway involved. That should be reviewed if the collision happened on or near a controlled-access highway, ramp or restricted roadway. But most no-sidewalk pedestrian claims do not turn on that issue.
Reverse Onus in No-Sidewalk Pedestrian Claims
Section 193 of the Highway Traffic Act may be important when a pedestrian is hit by a motor vehicle on a highway.
The reverse-onus rule can require the driver or owner to prove that the loss or damage did not arise through negligence or improper conduct. It does not mean the pedestrian automatically wins. It also does not prevent the defence from arguing that the pedestrian contributed to the collision.
In a no-sidewalk case, reverse onus can shift attention back to the driver’s explanation. If the driver says the pedestrian was hard to see, the evidence still has to answer whether the driver was travelling at a safe speed, keeping a proper lookout, using proper headlights, responding to the road conditions and leaving enough room where possible.
For a broader discussion of reverse onus, driver responsibility and shared fault in pedestrian claims, see our article on who is at fault in a pedestrian accident in Ontario.
Shared Fault Arguments
Pedestrians could potentially be found partly at fault in some no-sidewalk cases. That does not automatically defeat the claim.
Ontario’s Negligence Act allows responsibility to be divided if more than one party contributed to the damage. Defence will attempt to focus on which side of the road the pedestrian used, whether they were close enough to the edge, whether they were wearing visible clothing, whether they were distracted, or whether they could have chosen a safer route.
Those arguments should be measured and considered against the driver’s conduct and the road conditions. Pedestrians who were walking in a narrow roadside area because there is no sidewalk is not the same as a pedestrian stepping suddenly into a lane of traffic. A driver approaching a visible pedestrian on a straight road is not in the same position as a driver facing a sudden hazard around a blind curve.
Municipal or Road Authority Issues
Sometimes no-sidewalk pedestrian claims also raise road-design or maintenance issues which adds a layer of compexity to the case.
The primary claim may still be against the driver and vehicle owner. A municipal or road authority issue may arise if the road edge, lighting, shoulder condition, snowbank, construction detour or pedestrian route contributed to the collision.
That does not mean a municipality is responsible because a sidewalk was absent.
Many Ontario roads do not have sidewalks. The question is more specific: did a road condition, maintenance issue, sightline problem, lighting issue, snowbank or unsafe pedestrian route contribute to the injury in a legally provable way?
If a municipal issue is possible, notice deadlines and preservation of records should be considered early.
Evidence That Helps Prove a No-Sidewalk Pedestrian Claim
The most useful evidence usually shows the scene from the driver’s approach and the pedestrian’s route. Photos and video should capture the road edge, shoulder width, lane width, lighting, curves, hills, signs, ditches, snowbanks, nearby driveways, bus stops, homes, businesses and the distance from which a driver could first see a pedestrian.
Vehicle evidence can also assist with determining fault. Headlight condition, vehicle speed, braking, point of impact, mirror or bumper contact, resting positions and damage location may help reconstruct how the collision occurred.
In some cases, reconstruction evidence is needed to address headlight visibility, perception-reaction time, stopping distance and whether the collision could have been avoided.
Common Defence Arguments
Drivers and insurance companies like to argue that the pedestrian should not have been walking where they were.
They might say the pedestrian was on the wrong side of the road, too far into the lane, wearing dark clothing, walking at night, distracted, impaired, or failing to move away from traffic.
However, a driver may have had time to slow down, move over or avoid the pedestrian. The road may have been known to have no sidewalk. The pedestrian may have been walking as close to the edge as the conditions allowed. The driver may have been travelling too fast for the available sight distance.
How We Approach These Claims
When we review a pedestrian claim involving a road without sidewalks, we start with the route. Where was the pedestrian coming from? Where were they going? Was there any sidewalk nearby? Was there a usable shoulder? Was one side of the road safer than the other? What did the road look like at the time of impact?
Then we look at visibility and driver response. The distance from which the pedestrian could be seen, the vehicle’s speed, the lighting, weather, road geometry and driver reaction often decide whether the claim can be proven.
Frequently Asked Questions About Pedestrians Hit on Roads Without Sidewalks
Can a pedestrian sue if they were hit while walking on a road without sidewalks?
Yes, if the evidence supports a claim. Ontario law recognizes that pedestrians may walk along highways where sidewalks are not provided, subject to rules about walking facing traffic and staying close to the edge when walking along the roadway.
Which side of the road should a pedestrian walk on if there is no sidewalk?
Section 179 of the Highway Traffic Act says that where sidewalks are not provided, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, as close to the left edge as possible.
Does walking on the wrong side of the road defeat the claim?
Not automatically. While it can certainly support a shared-fault argument, but the full evidence still has to be reviewed. Road-edge conditions, snowbanks, shoulder width, visibility and the driver’s conduct can all affect the analysis.
What if the driver says the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing?
Dark clothing can be relevant, especially at night, but it does not end the claim. The investigation should also look at headlights, road lighting, vehicle speed, weather, sight distance and whether the driver could have seen and avoided the pedestrian.
Does reverse onus apply if there was no sidewalk?
It may apply where the pedestrian was hit by a motor vehicle on a highway and the statutory requirements are met. Reverse onus does not mean the pedestrian automatically wins, but it can require the driver or owner to disprove negligence or improper conduct.
Can the municipality be responsible because there was no sidewalk?
Not simply because there was no sidewalk. A municipal or road authority claim requires a specific legal basis, such as a road condition, maintenance issue, sightline problem, snowbank, lighting issue or unsafe pedestrian route that contributed to the collision.
Speak With an Ontario Pedestrian Accident Lawyer
Pedestrian cases where there was a road without sidewalks requires a careful review of the route, road edge, lighting, visibility, driver conduct and Highway Traffic Act rules. These cases should not be dismissed simply because the pedestrian was walking near the roadway.
Foster Injury Law represents pedestrians injured in serious collisions throughout Ontario. If you were hit while walking along a road without sidewalks, on a shoulder, or near the edge of a roadway in Ontario, speak with our Ontario pedestrian accident lawyers about the evidence and steps needed to protect your claim.