Crosswalk Violation

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-18-3 (right-of-way in crosswalk). Westerly police officers conducted a crosswalk safety operation aimed at citing vehicles that failed to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Defendant was cited during such a crosswalk safety operation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred because it was impossible for Defendant to yield since she did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk.

The relevant statute provides that a vehicle should ordinarily yield to pedestrians in crosswalks “when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.” See § 31-18-3(a). Here, the record lacked evidence proving that the pedestrian was at a point in the crosswalk that required Defendant to yield because there was no evidence demonstrating where the pedestrian was in the road when Defendant drove through the crosswalk. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge and that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision.

Town of Westerly v. Katherine Vangorder M19-0007 (September 9, 2019 ).pdf

Crosswalk Violation

Defendant appealed a trial judge’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-18-3 (right-of-way in crosswalk). Westerly police officers conducted a crosswalk safety operation aimed at citing vehicles that failed to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Defendant was cited during such a crosswalk safety operation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred because the police officer was not in the half of the roadway in which her vehicle was traveling.

The relevant statute provided that a vehicle should yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when “the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.” See § 31-18-3(a). Here, the record lacked evidence proving that the pedestrian was at a point in the crosswalk that required Defendant to yield because there was no evidence demonstrating where the pedestrian was in the road when Defendant drove through the crosswalk. As such, the Appeals Panel held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge and that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the trial judge’s decision.

Town of Westerly v. Sharleen Rustici, No. M19-0006 (August 22, 2019).pdf

Crosswalk Violation

Defendant appealed the decision of a Trial Judge sustaining a violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 31-18-5 (Crossing other than at crosswalks). Defendant, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle after crossing the street at a three-way intersection. The intersection Defendant walked through did not have a crosswalk. The responding officer spoke with Defendant and the vehicle operator. Then, the officer issued a citation to Defendant for failing to yield the right of way, where there was no crosswalk, by entering the intersection. The Trial Judge, finding that Defendant had been walking where there was no crosswalk, concluded that “that’s the City’s only burden, and therefore, . . . I do find her guilty of the charge.” The Appeals Panel, however, noted that the Trial Judge made no mention of whether he found that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to vehicles entering the roadway, as required by § 31-18-5. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that, without a finding with respect to that element, it was impossible to “pass upon the appropriateness of the order and the grounds upon which it rests.” The Appeals Panel further noted that the record contained no evidence regarding whether Defendant had, in fact, failed to yield the right of way, because there was no evidence detailing any actions taken by Defendant to discern whether she had a duty to yield the right of way prior to entering the roadway. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel found the Trial Judge’s decision clearly erroneous and granted Defendant’s appeal.

City of Woonsocket v. Stephanie Mello, No. M17-0001 (April 16, 2018).pdf

Crosswalk Violation

Defendant appealed decision of the trial judge sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-18-3 (right of way in crosswalks). The Central Falls Police Department conducted a traffic enforcement operation that targeted pedestrian safety in crosswalks. As vehicles entered a designated “safety zone,” a plain-clothed officer was tasked with crossing a roadway in a crosswalk. A separate officer was tasked with stopping and citing vehicles that did not yield for the officer in the crosswalk. Defendant argued that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous because the record lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the charged violation. The Appeals Panel noted that § 31-18-3(a) requires a driver to “slow[] down or stop[] if need be to so yield” to a pedestrian “when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.” While the testimony revealed that the officer “was trying to cross the street,” the Appeals Panel held that the trial judge’s decision was clearly erroneous because the record lacked evidence “proving that [the crossing officer] was in the crosswalk at a location that would have required [Defendant] to yield the right of way, and evidence proving that [Defendant] did not yield that right of way by slowing down.” Accordingly, the Appeals Panel reversed the decision of the trial judge.

City of Central Falls v. Hirak Biswas, No. M17-0027 (July 31, 2018).pdf