"Pedestrians most vulnerable of road users": Kerala High Court calls on authorities to ensure safety at zebra crossings

Confronted with a case in which a woman lost her life upon being hit by a police vehicle while using a pedestrian zebra crossing, the Kerala High Court recently directed authorities to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of pedestrians while using designated crossing zones. [Kerala State Insurance Department v Joy Wilson & Ors.].Justice Devan Ramachandran opined that the case exposes the issues with the roads and the drivers who use them."Our roads are still woefully inadequate in pedestrian safety. There are seldom pedestrian crossings properly marked; and even when they are, very few drivers heed it. This Court is fully aware if the Rules relating to ‘Zebra Crossing’ are taught to the learner drivers; but it is evident that they are never enforced," Justice Ramachandran elaborated.He pointed out that the most vulnerable of all road users are pedestrians, especially children and the elderly. The issues are also compounded by the "chaotic confusion on out roads", he observed.In an effort to rectify the situation, the judge ordered all the concerned authorities to ensure that pedestrian crossings ensure priority and safety of pedestrians."Pedestrian crossings must be marked and enforced on all main roads – this is the forensic duty of the authorities and officers concerned," the judgment stated.Accordingly, it was ordered that a copy of the judgement be sent to the relevant government departments. .The issue came to the notice of the Court while it was considering an appeal moved by the Kerala State Insurance Department against an order of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), that awarded around ₹48 lakh to the husband, children and mother of one Doreen Rola Mendenza.Doreen was killed when she was hit by a police vehicle as she was crossing a National Highway on a pedestrian zebra crossing..Government Pleader S Gopinadhan, appearing for the appellant, submitted that Doreen was careless and negligent while crossing the road and that she ought to have been more circumspect and aware of the surroundings and circumstances, particularly due to the heavy traffic in the area. Therefore, the MACT ought not have awarded such a large sum..On the other hand, the counsel appearing for Doreen's family members submitted that the sum was awarded on considering her salary and also against a claim of nearly ₹86 lakh..Justice Ramachandran opined that the appellant's argument was "baffling"."It is baffling for this Court that an argument is made out by the appellant that, when a pedestrian crosses the road at the earmarked place for such purpose - which is commonly known as ‘zebra crossing’ - the rash conduct of a vehicle, in hitting him/her, should be justified on the ground that liability of care is more on the said person," he said in the order.This is more so in light of the fact that the MACT, upon examining the FIR (first information report), had recorded that the conclusion of the Investigating Authority was that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The judge further noted that the appellant had not assailed the FIR itself either. "When one juxtaposes the afore with the conceded fact that the offending vehicle was a Police Jeep, driven by a Police Driver, the enormity of the situation projects itself. The Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, render it statutorily obliged for the driver of a Motor Vehicle to slow down at a road intersection, a road junction, pedestrian crossing or a road corner," Justice Ramachandran opined. The conduct of the Police Driver in this case was, the judge opined, unconscionable, especially since his liability to follow the law is much more imperative than any other."Thus, when pedestrians, apodictically, have priority on the ‘Zebra Crossing’ and merely because the drivers of vehicles do not understand this, it would be egregiously outlandish to even suggest that one who is killed or sustains injury solely because he/she took the liberty of making the crossing through such designated area, should nevertheless be held guilty of contributory negligence. This is contrary to the established road norms and the internationally accepted canons of road safety; and this becomes much more pronounced when one hears that the accident was caused by a Police Jeep, driven by a Police Driver", the judgment stated..The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal but posted the matter to March 10 so as to consider the action taken reports that are to be submitted by the relevant authorities..[Read Judgment]