Pedestrians and Children Hit While Crossing the Road in Kuwait: Is the Driver Always Liable? The Effect of Pedestrian Fault and Parental Negligence

Few road incidents in Kuwait are as distressing as a car striking a pedestrian who is crossing the street, and the distress doubles when the person hit is a child who ran out of a house or a school gate. Within minutes of such an accident two opposite claims are usually heard. The injured person's family says the driver is always to blame because he was in control of a dangerous machine. The driver says the pedestrian crossed where no crossing was allowed, or appeared in front of the car so suddenly that nothing could have been done. Kuwaiti law does not fully accept either claim.

This article deals only with pedestrians. It does not go back over the general rules on traffic accidents and compensation, which we covered in Traffic Accidents and Compensation in Kuwait. It also leaves aside a father's liability when his minor son drives the family car, the subject of A Minor Son Driving and Causing an Accident, and injuries inside a school, which we discussed in Your Child Injured at School or Nursery. Our question here is narrower: when is the driver who hit a pedestrian liable, when is that liability reduced or removed, and how much does the pedestrian's own carelessness, or a parent's failure to supervise a child, change the outcome?

We start by separating criminal liability, which can end in a penalty for the driver, from civil liability, which ends in compensation for the victim. Confusing the two causes many of the practical mistakes people make. We then look at the pedestrian's own fault and at the special case of young children, which is genuinely disputed among jurists. After that we cover the higher standard of care expected near schools, in residential streets and at pedestrian crossings, and the part compulsory motor insurance plays in compensating pedestrians. The article ends with the practical steps, from the first report to settlement and waiver, worked examples, and answers to common questions.

The Short Answer

No, the driver is not always liable, but he is liable in most cases. In civil law, the person who drives or has custody of a vehicle bears the risk of the harm it causes, and the law presumes fault on his side. The injured pedestrian therefore does not have to prove that the driver was negligent. The driver escapes liability only by proving an external cause he had no part in. One such cause is the victim's own fault, provided it was the sole or dominant cause of the accident and the driver could neither foresee nor avoid it.

Where both were at fault, for example a pedestrian crossing away from the designated point while the driver was going too fast for the area or looking at his phone, liability is usually shared. Compensation is then reduced in proportion to the pedestrian's contribution, not cancelled. How the blame is divided is a question of fact for the trial judge, who decides it on the traffic report, the site inspection, witness evidence and any recordings.

On the criminal side, the driver answers for negligent injury or negligent homicide if it is proven that he failed in his duty of care and that this failure caused the harm. The pedestrian's fault clears the driver criminally only if it breaks the chain of causation and outweighs the driver's own fault. Two questions about young children are open to real debate and are left to the court: whether a young child can be at "fault" at all, and whether the parents' lack of supervision can be held against the child. In every case the victim or the heirs can claim from the vehicle's compulsory insurer. Settlement and waiver affect the criminal case and the civil claim differently, so sign nothing until you understand what it does.

The Legislative Framework

Several Kuwaiti statutes apply together when a pedestrian is struck, and each does a different job:

• Traffic Law No. 67 of 1976 and its executive regulations set the rules of the road and the duties of drivers. These include keeping to the prescribed speed and driving to suit road conditions, giving way to pedestrians at designated crossings, stopping at signals, and not being distracted while driving. The same rules set duties for pedestrians: using pavements and designated crossing points, and not rushing into the road without warning. A breach by either side is strong evidence of fault when liability is assessed. The law also governs compulsory motor insurance for the benefit of third parties.
• The Penal Code, Law No. 16 of 1960, makes negligent homicide and negligent injury offences. These cover causing death or harm through recklessness, carelessness, negligence, inattention or failure to follow laws and regulations. A driver who hits a pedestrian is prosecuted under these provisions, in addition to any separate traffic violations he committed.
• The Criminal Procedure Law, Law No. 17 of 1960, governs the investigation of the accident and the decision on it, civil claims brought before the criminal court, and settlement and waiver in the offences where the law allows them.
• The Civil Code, Law No. 67 of 1980, is where the right to compensation comes from. It establishes liability for harmful acts and liability for things that need special care in their custody, vehicles chief among them. It deals with how the victim's own fault reduces or removes compensation, and with the liability of those responsible for supervising others. It also governs compensation for bodily harm through the rules on diya and the schedule of injuries attached to them.
• The Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, Law No. 39 of 1980, governs how the facts of the accident are proven in civil court: witnesses, documents, expert evidence and presumptions.
• The Child Rights Law, Law No. 21 of 2015, establishes the protection of the child and the child's best interests, and gives parents and carers duties to protect children from danger. These duties may come up when a court considers how far parents were supervising a child on the road.
• The Insurance Regulation Law, Law No. 125 of 2019, governs insurance companies and their supervision. It matters when you deal with an insurer over a settlement or complain about delay.
• The Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Law No. 38 of 1980, governs how a civil compensation claim is filed and conducted and how judgments are appealed.

Where the victim is a child, any compensation awarded may also involve the authority that manages minors' property, which we mention here by function only. The key point is that the criminal case and the civil claim rest on different provisions and different standards, even though they come from the same accident.

The Substantive Rules

1. Criminal liability versus civil liability

Criminal liability is about punishment. The Public Prosecution or the competent investigating authority charges the driver with negligent injury or negligent homicide. To convict, it must be proven with certainty that he committed a fault, of any degree, and that this fault caused the pedestrian's injury or death. Any doubt benefits the accused. If no fault is proven, or the accident turns out to have had a cause outside his control, he is acquitted.

Civil liability is about repairing harm. Under the Kuwaiti Civil Code the victim does not always have to prove the driver's fault. The code makes the custodian of things needing special care liable, and a vehicle is the clearest example, so fault is presumed against him. In practice this means that a criminal acquittal does not necessarily defeat a compensation claim. Everything turns on the reason for the acquittal. If the court found that the incident never happened, or that the accused was not the driver, the civil claim is affected. If the acquittal was only for lack of sufficient proof of fault, the victim may still rely on the vehicle custodian's presumed liability. This is a delicate point about how far a criminal judgment binds the civil judge, and it has to be assessed case by case.

The reverse also holds. Once a driver's criminal conviction is final, his fault is established before the civil judge and he cannot dispute it again. The civil judge still decides how much harm was done, how much compensation is due, and how far the pedestrian contributed to the accident.

2. The driver's duty of care towards pedestrians

A driver must drive so that he can control his vehicle and avoid the foreseeable hazards of the road. Pedestrians at the roadside are one of those hazards, especially in residential areas and markets and near mosques and schools, and a careful driver is expected to allow for them. That is why it is not enough for a driver to say he was within the speed limit. A suitable speed is not the same as the maximum speed. Even a lawful speed can be negligent on a road crowded with pedestrians, in poor visibility, or where children are playing near the kerb.

The driver faults most often argued in pedestrian cases are: speeding, or a speed unsuited to the place; failing to stop at a pedestrian crossing or a signal; using a phone; overtaking a vehicle that has stopped to let a pedestrian cross; reversing without checking that the way is clear; driving under the influence or while exhausted; driving with poor lights or brake defects the driver knew about; and turning into a side street without watching for people crossing it.

3. The pedestrian's fault and its civil effect

Pedestrians have duties too. They should use the pavement, cross at designated points where one is nearby, obey signals, avoid stepping out suddenly from between parked cars, and stay off expressways where no pedestrian would be expected. Breaching these duties is fault that counts when liability is assessed. Courts generally treat a pedestrian's fault in one of three ways:

• The pedestrian's fault was the sole cause: for example, someone jumps out in front of a car travelling at a suitable speed on an expressway where nobody would expect a crossing, too close for any careful driver to stop. The victim's fault may then count as an external cause that clears the driver completely. This applies only if it was unforeseeable and unavoidable and the driver did nothing that contributed to the outcome.
• Both parties were at fault: this is the most common situation. The pedestrian crossed away from the crossing while the driver was speeding or inattentive. The driver remains liable, but the judge reduces compensation according to how much the pedestrian's fault contributed to the harm.
• One fault outweighs the other: if one party's fault was serious enough to be the real cause of the accident, that party may bear the whole liability. A drunk driver, or one going very fast through a residential street, may be held fully responsible even though the pedestrian crossed in the wrong place. In other cases it works the other way.

A sudden appearance is not enough on its own. A driver who argues that the pedestrian "came out of nowhere" must persuade the court that a careful driver in the same place and at the same time could not have foreseen it, and that he himself was driving with the speed and caution those conditions required. A child running out near a school at home time, or in a residential street where children play, is hard to call unforeseeable.

4. Young children: can a child be at fault?

This is the most delicate question, and jurists genuinely disagree on it. We set out both views without choosing between them:

• The first view holds that civil fault requires discernment and awareness. A child too young to discern cannot commit fault in the legal sense, so the child's compensation should not be cut on the ground that he was careless in running into the road. Supporters of this view say that protecting children means not making them bear the consequences of conduct whose danger they cannot understand.
• The second view uses an objective test of fault, meaning a departure from ordinary conduct. On this view the child's behaviour, even if it is not blameworthy, remains a physical fact that can be weighed when deciding causation. If the child's sudden dash was the sole cause and the driver could not have avoided it, the driver's liability may be removed or reduced.

In practice there is a lot of ground between the two positions. Courts usually look at the child's age and level of understanding, where the accident happened, and whether the driver should have expected children to be about. The younger the child, and the more the area is one where children gather, the more caution is expected of the driver. The final assessment belongs to the judge, on the facts of each case.

5. Parents' failure to supervise

The Civil Code makes whoever supervises a minor liable for harm the minor causes to others. Pedestrian cases raise a different question: can a parent's failure to supervise be used to reduce the compensation owed to the child? This too is disputed:

• One view holds that the child's compensation is the child's own right, separate from the parents' rights, and the parents' failure cannot be held against the child because it is not the child's fault. Where there are grounds, the driver or the insurer may instead claim against the negligent guardian for his share as a contributor to the harm.
• Another view holds that the supervising guardian's fault is one of the causes the court weighs, and can affect the amount awarded, particularly where the guardian is the one claiming on the child's behalf.

Claims the parents bring for themselves, such as moral damages for their child's injury or death, or the costs they paid, are different. The better view is that a proven failure to supervise does affect these personal claims, because they belong to the parents and are affected by the parents' own fault. All of this is for the court to decide. Our practical advice to families: do not assume your own lapse will defeat your child's claim, and do not assume it will count for nothing either. Concentrate on gathering evidence of the driver's fault and of the conditions at the scene.

6. Heightened care near schools, in residential areas and at crossings

Drivers are expected to be much more attentive in these places:

• Near schools and kindergartens: drop-off and pick-up times are well known, children at the roadside are to be expected, and school buses stopping to let pupils off are a normal sight. A driver who overtakes a stopped school bus, or drives too fast for a school zone, will struggle to claim the child appeared without warning.
• In residential streets: a child stepping out between cars parked outside houses, or running after a ball, is a foreseeable risk. Driving gently and being ready to stop are part of the duty of care.
• At pedestrian crossings and signals: a pedestrian using a designated crossing at the permitted time is in a much stronger legal position, and the driver is in principle required to give way. A driver who hits someone on a crossing will find it very hard to defend himself.
• Car parks and shopping centres: reversing and moving slowly among pedestrians require checking that the way is clear. Many accidents involving children happen in car parks.
• At night and in poor visibility: the driver must slow down further and use proper lights. The pedestrian, for his part, must take more care not to cross at dark, undesignated points.

7. Who else may be liable?

The vehicle's owner may be liable alongside the driver if the owner was its actual custodian. An employer may be liable where the driver is his employee and caused the accident while working or because of the work, such as a company driver or a school bus driver. The authority responsible for the road may also be questioned if missing lighting, crossings or signals contributed. That is similar to what we discussed in Government or Contractor Liability for Road Defects, although it is harder to prove in pedestrian cases. Where more than one vehicle is involved, for example one car pushed onto a pedestrian after a collision with another, the rules in Chain Collisions Between Several Cars apply.

8. Compensation and diya

An injured pedestrian may claim compensation for: the bodily injury itself, under the Civil Code's diya rules and the schedule of injuries and their proportions attached to them; medical and rehabilitation costs; lost earnings if the injury kept him from working; and moral harm such as pain, suffering and disfigurement. If the accident was fatal, the heirs may claim the diya and compensation for the harm they personally suffered, as the law provides. How the diya relates to additional compensation for other heads of damage is a technical question on which views differ. We therefore give no figures here: amounts depend on the medically established injury and on the court's assessment. Before accepting any settlement an insurer offers, compare it with what a court might award.

9. Compulsory insurance and the pedestrian's rights

Compulsory motor insurance exists mainly to protect third parties, and a pedestrian is the clearest example of a third party. If the vehicle that struck him carried compulsory insurance, he can in principle claim compensation for injury or death from the insurer, and can sue the insurer directly together with the driver and the owner. You will find a full explanation of the types of cover and their scope in Motor Insurance in Kuwait: Compulsory and Comprehensive.

The insurer takes the place of the liable person in paying compensation and can raise the same defences, including the pedestrian's fault and how far it contributed. In certain cases set out in the policy and the law, such as driving under the influence or without a licence, the insurer may have a right to recover from the driver after paying. That is a matter between the insurer and the driver and should not deprive the injured pedestrian of his rights. If the vehicle was uninsured or the driver fled, a different route applies, explained in Accidents with an Uninsured Vehicle or a Hit-and-Run Driver.

Principles of the Court of Cassation

Published judgments and the general direction of the courts show several principles that the Court of Cassation applies in disputes of this kind:

• The Court of Cassation has consistently held that the custodian of things needing special care, vehicles included, is liable on the basis of presumed fault, and is released only by proving an external cause he had no part in, such as force majeure, the victim's fault or a third party's fault.
• It has consistently held that the victim's fault releases the liable party completely only if it was the sole cause of the harm, or serious enough to outweigh the liable party's fault. Where both were at fault, the court may reduce compensation according to the victim's contribution.
• It has consistently held that deciding what fault creates liability, whether causation exists, and how liability is divided between the parties are questions of fact for the trial judge, provided the judgment gives sound reasons supported by the case file.
• It has consistently held that a final criminal judgment binds the civil judge on the points it necessarily decided: whether the act occurred, who committed it, and its legal characterisation. This binding effect does not extend to points the criminal judgment did not need to decide.
• It has consistently held that the fault required for negligent homicide or negligent injury exists in any form of negligence or want of care, and that the victim's fault does not clear the accused unless it outweighed his fault and was enough on its own to cause the result.

Methodological note: these principles are stated in the general form used in Kuwaiti practice, without case numbers or dates. Applying any of them depends on the facts of each case, and case law changes over time. Anyone relying on one of these principles in a live case should read the full judgment in official sources and check that it still reflects the prevailing approach.

Practical Steps and Documents

If you are the injured person or a family member

1. Medical help first. Call an ambulance and get the injured person to hospital. Do not move someone with a head or back injury yourself unless it is absolutely necessary.
2. Report immediately. Ask for the traffic police and police to attend the scene. Never agree to leave it without an official report because the injury "looks minor". Pedestrian injuries sometimes get worse hours or days later, and an informal roadside arrangement can cost you your claim. We explain the risks in Settling a Traffic Accident Without a Police Report.
3. Record the scene. Photograph the accident site, where the injured person fell, any nearby crossing, signal or school, the lighting, any skid marks, and where the vehicle ended up. These details settle many disputes about speed and sudden appearance.
4. Witnesses and cameras. Take witnesses' names and phone numbers. Note the cameras nearby on shops, houses, schools and signals, and ask the competent authorities to secure the footage quickly, because many systems overwrite recordings automatically.
5. Vehicle and insurance details. Get the vehicle's plate number, the driver's name and the insurance policy details. You will need them to claim from the insurer.
6. Medical reports. Keep every medical record from the emergency department onwards: X-rays, operation reports, the final medical report setting out the injury and any permanent disability, and invoices for treatment, medicines and physiotherapy. The final medical report, whether from the official medical authority or a court-appointed expert, is the basis for assessing diya and compensation.
7. The traffic report. Ask for a copy and check what it says about where the pedestrian was and how fault was divided. If it contradicts what happened, it can be challenged and rebutted, as explained in The Traffic Report and Fault Percentages. The traffic report does not bind the court, but it carries real weight.
8. If the driver fled. Leaving the scene is a separate offence. Its elements and consequences are covered in Leaving the Scene of an Accident Under Kuwaiti Law.

If you are the driver

1. Stop at once, help the injured person, and call an ambulance and the traffic police. If you flee, you stop being a defendant in a negligent injury case who may have a good defence and become a defendant in an additional offence, which weakens your whole position.
2. Do not move the vehicle unless the authorities tell you to or leaving it there is dangerous, and photograph its position and the road.
3. Identify cameras and witnesses that can show the pedestrian crossed suddenly or away from a designated point. That is the core of your defence.
4. Notify your insurer as soon as the policy requires. Late notice can lead to a dispute with the insurer.
5. Do not give written statements or sign any admission of fault until you understand its effect. You are entitled to a lawyer during the investigation.

Settlement, waiver and their effect

The Criminal Procedure Law allows the victim to settle or waive the complaint in certain specified offences. The effect depends on the offence and on how far the case has gone. Three things need to be kept apart:

• Waiving the criminal complaint: in the offences where the law allows it, this may end or affect the criminal case. It does not necessarily give up the civil right to compensation unless that is expressly stated.
• Settling the compensation: this is a civil agreement that ends the money dispute. If it contains words such as "full and final release" or "waiver of all rights", it may stop you claiming anything more later, even if the injury turns out worse than it first appeared.
• Fatal accidents: the right to waive or settle belongs to the heirs, and you first have to establish who has standing. If any heir is a minor, nobody may give up that minor's rights except within the legal limits and with the approval of the authority that manages minors' property.

The rule we always give is this: do not sign any waiver or release before the final medical report, before you know whether it covers only the criminal side or the civil side too, and before you have compared the amount offered with what a court might award.

Key documents

• The civil ID of the injured person or of the heirs, and the death certificate and inheritance certificate in fatal cases.
• A copy of the accident report and the traffic report.
• Initial and final medical reports, and treatment invoices.
• The vehicle details and the compulsory insurance policy.
• Photographs, recordings and witnesses' names.
• Proof of lost earnings if the injured person could not work, such as a salary certificate or a letter from the employer.
• For a child: proof of the guardianship of the person claiming on the child's behalf.

Hypothetical Cases

Case one: a man crossing an expressway at night

A man crosses an expressway late at night, far from any footbridge or crossing. A car within the speed limit hits him, and camera footage shows he appeared in front of it at very short range. The driver has a strong argument that the pedestrian's fault was the sole or dominant cause, and the criminal case may end in acquittal. On the civil side, the court will ask whether the driver contributed anything at all, such as reacting late or driving with weak headlights. If no fault of any kind is found and the accident was unavoidable, the driver may not be liable. If a minor fault is found, the likely result is shared liability with a substantial reduction in compensation.

Case two: a child chasing a ball in a residential street

A young child runs out between two cars parked outside his home, chasing a ball, and is hit by a car passing along the street. The driver says the child appeared suddenly and that the parents failed to supervise him. The court will look at whether the driver's speed suited a residential street where children are to be expected, and at whether the child could have been seen. On whether fault can be attributed to the child, and whether the parents' lapse can be held against the child's compensation, the disagreement described above comes into play, and the court will decide by reference to the child's age and the circumstances. The parents' claims for their own personal harm may be affected by any lapse that is proven against them.

Case three: a teacher on a crossing outside a school

A teacher is using the designated crossing outside a school at home time when a driver overtakes a bus that has stopped at the crossing and hits her. The driver's position is very weak on both the criminal and civil sides. He clearly failed to give way to a pedestrian on a crossing and overtook a stopped vehicle in a school zone. She can claim directly from the compulsory insurer, and can either join a civil claim to the criminal case or bring a separate civil action. She should not accept any quick settlement offer from the insurer before her final medical report.

Quick Comparison

• Pedestrian on a designated crossing at the permitted time: the driver is usually fully liable, and compensation is reduced only in exceptional circumstances.
• Pedestrian crossing away from the crossing on an internal road: usually shared fault, with compensation reduced in line with the pedestrian's contribution, as the court decides.
• Pedestrian dashing across an expressway far from any footbridge: the driver may not be liable at all if the accident was unavoidable and he was not at fault.
• Young child in a residential or school area: a higher duty of care on the driver. Whether the child can be at fault and how the parents' lapse counts are disputed, and the judge decides.
• Driver drunk, speeding heavily or on the phone: his fault may outweigh the pedestrian's so that he bears full liability, and the insurer may have a right to recover from him.
• Criminal case: requires certain proof of the driver's fault and of causation, and any doubt benefits him.
• Civil case: rests on presumed fault by the vehicle's custodian, which is displaced only by proof of an external cause.
• Criminal waiver versus civil release: the first does not necessarily include the second. What matters is the wording of the document you sign.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the driver always liable when he hits a pedestrian?

No. As a starting point the driver is civilly liable as the vehicle's custodian, and fault is presumed against him. He can escape liability by proving an external cause, including the pedestrian's fault where that was the sole or dominant cause. On the criminal side he is convicted only if his fault and causation are proven.

Does crossing away from a crossing cancel the pedestrian's right to compensation?

Not necessarily. Crossing away from a designated point is fault that counts, but in most cases it reduces compensation in proportion to the pedestrian's contribution rather than cancelling it. It cancels it only if it was the sole cause of the accident and the driver could not have avoided it.

If the driver is acquitted in the criminal case, will the compensation claim fail?

Not always. It depends on why he was acquitted. An acquittal for insufficient proof of fault may still leave a claim based on the custodian's presumed liability. An acquittal finding that the act did not happen, or that the accused did not commit it, has a wider effect. The criminal judgment itself needs to be read carefully.

Can a young child who ran into the road be at fault?

The point is disputed. One view says a child too young to discern cannot be at fault, so the compensation is not reduced. Another treats the child's conduct as a physical fact when deciding causation. Courts usually consider the child's age, the location, and what the driver should have expected, and the judge decides.

Will my child's compensation be reduced because we did not supervise him?

This is also disputed. One view treats the child's compensation as the child's own right, unaffected by the parents' fault. Another includes the guardian's lapse among the causes the court weighs. The parents' claims for their own personal harm are more likely to be affected by a proven lapse on their part.

Can I claim directly from the insurance company?

In principle, yes. Compulsory insurance exists to protect third parties, and an injured pedestrian is a third party. He can claim from the vehicle's insurer and can sue it together with the driver and the owner. The insurer can raise the same defences, including the pedestrian's fault.

Should I accept the insurer's settlement offer?

Not before the final medical report, not before comparing the offer with what a court could award under the diya rules and the other heads of damage, and not before reading the release wording carefully, because it may bar any later claim.

Does dropping the criminal complaint mean giving up compensation?

Not necessarily. Waiving the criminal complaint and waiving the civil right are two separate things, and the wording of what you sign decides which you have done. If it says you waive all civil rights, you may lose your compensation claim.

Can a fatal pedestrian accident be settled?

In fatal cases settlement and waiver are matters for the heirs, and their effect depends on what the Criminal Procedure Law permits for the offence. If any heir is a minor, nobody else may give up that minor's rights except within the legal limits and with the competent authority's approval.

The traffic report put most of the blame on the pedestrian. Is that the end of it?

No. The traffic report carries weight but does not bind the court. It can be rebutted with recordings, witnesses, a site inspection and a request for a court-appointed expert. Challenge it through the available routes and put your counter-evidence forward early.

Is the owner liable if someone else was driving?

The owner may be liable if he was the vehicle's actual custodian. An employer may be liable if the driver was his employee and caused the accident while working or because of the work. It depends on who actually controlled the vehicle at the time.

A driver reversed into me in a shopping centre car park. Who is responsible?

The driver, in principle, because reversing requires checking that the way is clear, and his compulsory insurance covers injury to third parties. The car park operator's liability may be raised if the layout or poor lighting contributed, but that is harder to prove.

Conclusion

Pedestrian accidents cannot be settled by a single rule. A driver is not automatically liable just because he was behind the wheel, and a pedestrian does not lose his rights just because he crossed in the wrong place. Kuwaiti law presumes the driver at fault as the custodian of a dangerous machine, and gives him a way to escape or reduce that liability if he proves that the pedestrian's fault was the sole or a contributing cause.

When the victim is a child, the question becomes harder. Jurists disagree about whether fault can be attributed to the child and what weight the parents' lapse should carry, and the judge weighs all the circumstances. What is clear is that drivers in residential streets, near schools and at pedestrian crossings must take greater care, and that claiming a sudden appearance carries much less weight in those places.

Whoever you are in the case, the injured person, a family member or the driver, the result usually depends on what you do in the first days: reporting the accident, recording the scene, securing footage, collecting medical reports, and not signing any waiver or release until you understand its effect on both the criminal and civil sides.

Legal Notice

This article is general legal information. It is not a substitute for a review of the facts and documents of your own accident, because liability, the division of fault and the amount of compensation all depend on the details of each case and on the court's assessment. If you have been involved in a pedestrian accident, as the injured person, a relative or the driver, you can contact Yumnaak Law Firm or book an appointment at our office to have your legal position reviewed before any settlement or waiver.