ave the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossi

This article involves the legal rights of pedestrians after they have been struck by a motor vehicle. This article reviews some of the relevant Pennsylvania law. Pedestrians have the right of way at intersections. Morris v. Moss, 425 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1981). Motorists are under a duty to exercise a very high degree of care at intersections and be able to stop at the slightest sign of danger. Lane v. Samuels, 39 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 1944). Where the driver is making a right turn into an intersecting street, she is required to be observant as to a pedestrian crossing the street and act with the due caution should circumstances require. Id.

Pedestrians have a perfect right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by the drivers of automobiles on the highways. Lavely v. Wolota, 384 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1978). Pedestrians in crossing streets have the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossin

Morris v. Moss, 425 A.2d 184 (Pa. Super. 1981). Motorists are under a duty to exercise a very high degree of care at intersections and be able to stop at the slightest sign of danger. Lane v. Samuels, 39 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 1944). Where the driver is making a right turn into an intersecting street, she is required to be observant as to a pedestrian crossing the street and act with the due caution should circumstances require. Id.

Pedestrians have a perfect right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by the drivers of automobiles on the highways. Lavely v. Wolota, 384 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1978). Pedestrians in crossing streets have the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossi

. Super. 1944). Where the driver is making a right turn into an intersecting street, she is required to be observant as to a pedestrian crossing the street and act with the due caution should circumstances require. Id.

Pedestrians have a perfect right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by the drivers of automobiles on the highways. Lavely v. Wolota, 384 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1978). Pedestrians in crossing streets have the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossi

d.

Pedestrians have a perfect right to rely on the exercise of reasonable care by the drivers of automobiles on the highways. Lavely v. Wolota, 384 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super. 1978). Pedestrians in crossing streets have the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossi

ave the right to rely upon automobile drivers not running them down. Lane v. Samuels, supra.

Where the testimony has shown that defendant drove her vehicle into plaintiff while the plaintiff was lawfully crossing the street, plaintiff is entitled to recover money damages for her pain and suffering, loss of wages, etc. The tort option selected by the pedestrian will apply to the pain and suffering award. If the plaintiff selected limited tort, or lives in a household with a relative who selected limited tort, she may be bound by that option. There are exceptions that apply, but are beyond the scope of this article. The medical bills are payable without regard to the tort option.