A recent court decision in Aruba has determined that two pedestrians struck by a car were partially responsible for the traffic accident in which they were injured. As a result, they will not receive any additional compensation beyond the amount already paid by the driver’s insurance company.
The incident occurred on October 20th, 2017, on L.G. Smith Boulevard near Super Food. The driver was turning onto Caya Imelda Catharina Eckmeyer-Bermudez when he hit two people who were crossing the street on foot. According to the driver, he was traveling below the 80 km/h speed limit when the stoplight turned green. As he approached the intersection, he caught a glimpse of someone to the left of his car in his peripheral vision, and then suddenly saw a woman directly in front of his vehicle as well.
The woman suffered serious injuries and had to be transported to the U.S. for medical treatment. She spent some time in a coma and later underwent several surgeries. At the start of the legal proceedings in July 2019, she was still in recovery.
Because the driver had car insurance, the insurer paid the injured pair 150,000 Aruban florins (approximately $76,700). However, the pedestrians claimed that their damages were higher and requested an additional 47,738.04 florins, citing material damages of over $84,000, non-material damages of $25,000, and legal expenses of $15,340.10.
The court rejected the claim, stating that the two pedestrians had crossed the four-lane road at a location far from the designated crosswalk. By doing so, they were found to be partly responsible for the accident. While the driver was not speeding and had no reason to expect pedestrians to cross outside the crosswalk, the court concluded that he still shared some responsibility for the collision.
The insurance company had already paid more than half of the claimed damages. Given the court’s ruling that the pedestrians were at least partially at fault, no additional payment is required. The ruling also emphasized that a driver cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate pedestrians crossing unexpectedly away from a marked crossing.
The pedestrians’ lawyer argued that the crosswalk was not clearly marked and that the speed limit at the intersection was actually 40 km/h, not 80, as the driver claimed. The lawyer also pointed out that there was a traffic sign indicating the lower speed limit. However, the court did not find these arguments convincing and upheld the original ruling of the lower court.
The case highlights the importance of using designated crosswalks and the legal implications for both drivers and pedestrians in traffic accidents. With this final ruling, the matter is considered closed.
