NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 211.75
PEDESTRIANS-DUTY OF LOOKOUT-PEDESTRIANS WITH THE RIGHT-OF- WAY.
The law provides that a pedestrian with the right-of-way has a duty
to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, which includes the keeping of
a reasonable lookout. However, he is not required to anticipate that the
operator of a motor vehicle will fail to obey the law by not yielding him
the right-of-way. He may assume, even up to the last moment, that an
operator will obey the law and yield the right-of-way. If, however, the
circumstances put or should put the pedestrian on notice that an operator
might fail to yield the right-of-way, the pedestrian must heed that notice
and exercise ordinary care for his own safety.2
A pedestrian's failure to notice that the operator might fail to yield
the right-of-way is not negligence within itself. However, the failure to
notice that the operator might fail to yield the right-of-way and failure to
exercise ordinary care for his own safety when, under the same or similar
circumstances, a reasonably careful and prudent person would have taken
notice and exercised ordinary care for his own safety, would be
negligence.
History
N.C.P.I.—Motor Vehicle 211.75 (June 1989). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-25
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
9a3a1c666c9fb1a398e070e3bc7f6a2f170af322af49a9e014dece394992db32
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.