Struck in an Aurora Crosswalk While Walking His Dog: A Pedestrian Injury Settlement
Result Snapshot
| Case type | Pedestrian struck in a signalized crosswalk by an inattentive driver |
|---|---|
| Injury | Hip and back injuries to the client; client’s dog injured and made a full recovery |
| Location | Aurora, Arapahoe County, Colorado |
| Resolution | Settlement after depositions and independent witnesses dismantled the driver’s account ($195,000) |
| Attorneys | Todd A. Travis and Jordan Travis, Rampart Injury Lawyers |
| Year | 2024 |
The Case in Brief
He had the walk signal. The white figure was lit, the law was on his side, and he stepped off the curb the way any of us would, his dog at his heel. The driver never saw either of them. In one instant, a routine evening walk through an Aurora intersection turned into a fight over who would pay for the damage.
Rampart Injury Lawyers took that fight. The driver’s insurance company opened at $30,000, a number that treated a man with hip and back injuries as a rounding error. We turned it down, built the record the insurer hoped we would not, and pushed the case to a resolution that reflected what actually happened.
This is a pedestrian crash case from Aurora, in Arapahoe County, Colorado. It matters because it shows a truth that insurers spend real energy trying to blur: a lit walk signal is not a suggestion. It is a right of way the driver was legally bound to honor.
What Happened
Our client was walking his dog across an intersection in Aurora. He was inside the crosswalk with the pedestrian signal showing Walk, which under Colorado law gave him the right of way over every vehicle at that intersection. The at-fault driver, not watching the road in front of her, pulled into the intersection and struck both the man and his dog.
There was nothing our client could have done differently. He waited for the signal. He crossed where he was supposed to. He was hit anyway.
Injuries and Medical Impact
The collision injured our client’s hip and back. Those are the kinds of injuries that follow a person into every ordinary movement: getting out of bed, climbing a staircase, bending down to pick up a child or a leash.
His dog was rushed to a local veterinarian and, thankfully, made a full recovery. The animal’s survival was a genuine relief. It did not erase the human cost, and it did not undo the medical bills, the pain, and the disruption the crash forced into our client’s daily life.
The Legal and Insurance Challenges
On paper, a pedestrian hit in a crosswalk with the walk signal looks like a clear case. Insurers know better than to treat it that way. Here, the carrier did two things at once. It offered $30,000, a figure designed to make an injured person take the quick money and disappear. And it leaned on the driver’s account of the crash, a version of events that, if believed, would have shifted some of the blame onto our client.
That move was not random. Colorado follows modified comparative negligence, which means that if a jury assigns the injured person enough fault, the recovery shrinks, and at fifty percent it vanishes entirely. Every percentage point the defense could pin on our client was a percentage point carved off the value of his claim. The whole case turned on whether the driver’s story would hold.
How Rampart Built the Case
It did not hold, because we did not let it. Rampart Injury Lawyers treated the driver’s version as a hypothesis to be tested, not a fact to be accepted.
We took depositions and put the driver under oath, on the record, with no room to drift. Her own testimony exposed what the file already suggested: she was not paying attention when she entered the intersection. Then we went to the people who actually saw it happen. Independent witnesses, with no stake in the outcome, described the crash in a way that flatly contradicted the driver’s account.
Once her story was boxed in by her own words and dismantled by neutral witnesses, the comparative-fault argument the insurer was counting on had nowhere to stand. The record stopped being a swearing contest and became a one-sided account of a distracted driver who ran down a man in a crosswalk.
The Result
The case settled for $195,000, more than six times the insurer’s opening offer. The drivers of that number were concrete: a clean right of way under a steady walk signal, a defendant whose deposition admissions undercut her own defense, and independent witnesses who left the comparative-fault theory with nowhere to go.
Every case is different, and the facts of this one are what produced this outcome. No lawyer can promise the same result in another matter, and this page does not. What it shows is the method: test the defense, lock the testimony, and refuse the first number.
Colorado Injury Law Takeaway
If you are researching a Colorado pedestrian or crosswalk claim, a few rules are worth understanding.
When a pedestrian signal shows a steady Walk, Colorado law lets pedestrians cross and requires the drivers of all vehicles to give them the right of way (C.R.S. 42-4-802). Separately, every driver has a duty to exercise due care to avoid hitting any pedestrian on the roadway (C.R.S. 42-4-807). When a driver breaks those duties and causes harm, the injured pedestrian can pursue the driver for the damage.
Two more rules shape what a case is worth. Colorado uses modified comparative negligence, so an injured person’s recovery is reduced by their share of fault and barred entirely if their fault reaches fifty percent (C.R.S. 13-21-111). That is exactly why insurers work so hard to assign blame. And most pedestrian claims arising from a motor vehicle carry a three-year deadline to file suit (C.R.S. 13-80-101).
As for the dog: Colorado treats pets as personal property. When another person’s negligence injures your animal, the recoverable losses are generally economic, such as the veterinary bills, rather than damages for emotional distress.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. When the pedestrian signal shows a steady Walk, Colorado law gives the pedestrian the right of way over all vehicles, and drivers must yield (C.R.S. 42-4-802). A driver who enters the crosswalk and hits a pedestrian who lawfully had the signal is in a difficult position on liability.
Often yes, as part of the economic damages. Colorado treats pets as personal property, so recovery generally covers economic losses like the veterinary costs rather than emotional distress damages. The specifics depend on the facts of your case.
That is a common tactic. Colorado follows modified comparative negligence (C.R.S. 13-21-111), so the insurer has a financial incentive to shift blame onto you. Independent witnesses, the driver’s own testimony, and the physical evidence are often what defeat a comparative-fault argument.
For most pedestrian injuries caused by a motor vehicle, Colorado sets a three-year deadline to file suit (C.R.S. 13-80-101). Waiting can cost you evidence and witnesses, so it is wise to talk to a lawyer early.
Talk to a Colorado Injury Lawyer
If you or someone you love was seriously hurt as a pedestrian in Aurora or elsewhere in Arapahoe County, Rampart Injury Lawyers will review your case at no cost. Call (303) 766-8766 for a free consultation.
You pay no attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery for you, and you may still be responsible for case costs and expenses as described in our written fee agreement. The sooner you reach out, the more we can do to protect the evidence your case depends on.
Disclaimers
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is unique, and the result described here depends on its specific facts. Discussing this result is not a prediction or guarantee about any other matter. (Colo. RPC 7.1)
This page is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not act on it without speaking to a lawyer about your specific situation. (Colo. RPC 1.18)
Rampart Injury Lawyers is a trade name of Travis Legal Offices, LLC. Todd A. Travis is the attorney responsible for the content of this communication. (Colo. RPC 7.5; Colo. RPC 7.2)
We handle injury cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay no attorney fees unless we obtain a recovery for you. Clients may remain responsible for case costs and expenses as described in the written fee agreement. (Colo. RPC 1.5)
