Pedestrians on Freeways

Defendant appealed the Trial Magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 31-18-17, Pedestrians on Freeways. A Rhode Island State Trooper arrived at the scene of an accident where he was informed that a “pedestrian had been struck by a motor vehicle on Route 95 North.” The trooper encountered the Defendant at the scene who appeared to be “conscious” with non-life-threatening injuries. The Defendant told the trooper that he was driving his motorcycle when the “seat became dislodged and traveled across the middle lane, into the right-hand lane of Route 95 North.” The Defendant was able to exit the highway and then proceeded to drive to the left shoulder of Route 95 South. The Defendant crossed the “concrete median” and ran across Route 95 north to retrieve his motorcycle seat. The defendant was struck by a vehicle when he attempted to return back to his motorcycle parked on Route 95 south. The Defendant disputed the charge, arguing that the statute has an exception to the violation when there is an “emergency” situation. The Trial Judge held that the exception was inapplicable because retrieving the seat was not an immediate action that needed to be taken and also reasoned that the Defendant had put himself in an “unsafe situation.” Accordingly, the Trial Judge sustained the charge. The Defendant appealed, arguing that the term “emergency” was subjective. 

The Appeals Panel noted that the statute, by its terms, does not apply “in an emergency or to render assistance in case of an accident or unforeseen cause.”  The Defendant here relied on the “emergency” exception.  The Appeals Panel, relying on the Merriam-Webster definition of “emergency,” held that the situation was not an emergency because it “did not ‘call for [the] immediate action’ of running across three lanes of Route 95 to recover the seat.” The Appeals Panel held that the emergency had ended upon the Defendant exiting the highway. Additionally, the Panel held that the emergency situation was created by the Defendant and, therefore, should not fall within the exception to the violation. The Appeals Panel denied the appeal and sustained the charged violation. State of Rhode Island v. Nicholas Lopes T21-0023 (July 15, 2022).pdf