(A) When highway traffic signals are not in place, not in operation, or are not clearly assigning the right-of-way, the driver of a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield or if required by section 4511.132 of the Revised Code, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
(B) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(C) Division (A) of this section does not apply under the conditions stated in division (B) of section 4511.48 of the Revised Code.
(D) Whenever any vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(E) Except as otherwise provided in this division, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.
If the offender commits the offense while distracted and the distracting activity is a contributing factor to the commission of the offense, the offender is subject to the additional fine established under section 4511.991 of the Revised Code.
Last updated April 30, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: Anderson v. Schmidt, 2013 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Anderson v. Schmidt, 2013 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11דFurther, once the pedestrian established her right-of-way in a crosswalk, the driver has a duty pursuant to R.C. 4511.46(A) to yield and the pedestrian is not deemed to have left a place of safety pursuant to R.”
Johnson v. Albers, 2012 Ohio 1367 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 15דBecause we determine that the trial court properly applied R.C. 4511.46, and that the trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm.”
Bell v. Giamarco, 553 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דR.C. 4511.46(A). Where the pedestrian *63 is a young child, motor vehicle drivers are charged with greater care in discharging their duties than would be imposed were the pedestrian an adult.”
McCullough v. Youngstown Sch. Dist., 2019 Ohio 3965 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “” R.C 4511.46(B). “Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along Case No.”
Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2דL-10-1368, 2011-Ohio-3713 , ¶ 16, citing R.C. 4511.46(B). “ ‘A “limited access highway” or “freeway” is a highway especially designed for through traffic[.”
Gates v. Dills, 234 N.E.2d 604 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2דis conclusive^ lv bound by the latter statement, thus rendering, inappli-; cable the provision of Section 4511.46, Revised Code, which provides that the operator of a vehicle shall yield the righf; *168 of way to a pedestrian lawfully crossing the roadway within any crosswalk.”
Johnson v. Cravens, 476 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2דAs to the Cravenses, however, we find, under the above-articulated standard, that the testimony of the parties and the affidavit of Steve Freeman, and the attached diagram of the scene drawn by Cincinnati police officers, raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the…”
Seege v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 5450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “In September 2012, Seege filed suit against Smith and the City of Dayton, alleging that Smith had negligently, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly failed to yield the right of 5 way as required by R.C. 4511.46(A). After both sides filed motions for summary judgment, the trial…”
Smith v. Dodson, 2006-Ca-24 (8-28-2007), 2007 Ohio 4429 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “{ 24} R.C.4511.46 provides no pedestrian shall leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
State v. Cross, 137 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). · cites it 3דThat if the jury finds that the decedent was riding a bicycle at the time and place in question, then that §4511.46 R. C., would not apply herein. “B.”
Fabal v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 3דFabal was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel when his appellate counsel failed to raise on direct appeal issues regarding the court’s failure to correctly find that the pedestrian was negligent per se because she failed to comply with both R.C. 4511.46(B) and…”
Fabal v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst. (S.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 3דFabal was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel when his appellate counsel failed to raise on direct appeal issues regarding the court’s failure to correctly find that the pedestrian was negligent per se because she failed to comply with both R.C. 4511.46(B) and…”
Bell v. Giamarco, 553 N.E.2d 694 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “R.C. 4511.46(A). Where the pedestrian *63 is a young child, motor vehicle drivers are charged with greater care in discharging their duties than would be imposed were the pedestrian an adult.”
Johnson v. Albers, 2012 Ohio 1367 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Because we determine that the trial court properly applied R.C. 4511.46, and that the trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm.”
Anderson v. Schmidt, 2013 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Further, once the pedestrian established her right-of-way in a crosswalk, the driver has a duty pursuant to R.C. 4511.46(A) to yield and the pedestrian is not deemed to have left a place of safety pursuant to R.”
Seege v. Smith, 2014 Ohio 5450 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “In September 2012, Seege filed suit against Smith and the City of Dayton, alleging that Smith had negligently, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly failed to yield the right of 5 way as required by R.C. 4511.46(A). After both sides filed motions for summary judgment, the trial…”
Johnson v. Cravens, 476 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “As to the Cravenses, however, we find, under the above-articulated standard, that the testimony of the parties and the affidavit of Steve Freeman, and the attached diagram of the scene drawn by Cincinnati police officers, raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.46(B): 10 cases
Anderson v. Schmidt, 2013 Ohio 3524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Further, once the pedestrian established her right-of-way in a crosswalk, the driver has a duty pursuant to R.C. 4511.46(A) to yield and the pedestrian is not deemed to have left a place of safety pursuant to R.”
McCullough v. Youngstown Sch. Dist., 2019 Ohio 3965 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “” R.C 4511.46(B). “Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along Case No.”
Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “L-10-1368, 2011-Ohio-3713 , ¶ 16, citing R.C. 4511.46(B). “ ‘A “limited access highway” or “freeway” is a highway especially designed for through traffic[.”
Johnson v. Albers, 2012 Ohio 1367 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “Because we determine that the trial court properly applied R.C. 4511.46, and that the trial court’s decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, we affirm.”
Johnson v. Cravens, 476 N.E.2d 1073 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “As to the Cravenses, however, we find, under the above-articulated standard, that the testimony of the parties and the affidavit of Steve Freeman, and the attached diagram of the scene drawn by Cincinnati police officers, raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.