(A) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway.
(B) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all traffic upon the roadway.
(C) Between adjacent intersections at which highway traffic signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
(D) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.
(E) This section does not relieve the operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley from exercising due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway.
(F) 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.
Last updated April 30, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12דR.C. 4511.48 {¶39} It is well settled that “ ‘a cause of action for negligence requires proof of (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach and injury, and (4) damages.”
Koepke v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 4084 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6ד48(A), "[e]very pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway.”
Neu v. Est. of Nussbaum, 2015 Ohio 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16ד{¶ 7} Appellant filed a civil complaint against Nussbaum in the Butler County Common Pleas Court, alleging that he was negligent for (1) violating his duty of care under R.C. 4511.48 to avoid hitting a pedestrian, (2) failing to maintain the assured clear distance ahead as…”
Smith v. Bond, 2016 Ohio 5883 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5ד48(A) provides, “[e]very pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles * * * upon the roadway.” Nonetheless, “[t]his section does not relieve the…”
McCullough v. Youngstown Sch. Dist., 2019 Ohio 3965 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2דFinally, “Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway.”
Kerns v. Hale, 2023 Ohio 1175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2דConstruing R.C. 4511.48(A), which essentially addresses the rights of drivers and pedestrians, the trial court found “there is no evidence that Defendants were negligent or reckless in their actions surrounding the vehicle-pedestrian accident of September 17, 2018.”
State v. Ward, 150 N.E.2d 465 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 4דThe paragraph of the court’s charge complained of by the defendant in her third contention reads as follows: “Hence you are instructed, that if defendant was then and there proceeding in a lawful manner, she had the absolute right of way, subject only to the requirement of the…”
State v. Jones, 2000 Ohio 374 (Ohio 2000). “A pedestrian crossing a street, between intersections, in a place other than a marked crosswalk (R.C. 4511.48[C]), walking in the left-hand side of a crosswalk (R.”
In re T.B., 2026 Ohio 1309 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3דhad violated Ohio’s pedestrian right-of-way law, R.C. 4511.48, which would be a minor misdemeanor for an adult.”
Feldman v. Howard, 214 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2דSection 4511.48, Revised Code, reads, in part: “Every pedestrian crossing a roadway * * * at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all traffic operating lawfully upon the roadway.”
Leahy v. Richardson, 2011 Ohio 3214 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3דWall, filed an action against Sprague, alleging that he was negligent when he struck Wall with his vehicle, Sprague moved for summary judgment on Wall's claims, arguing that he owed no legal duty to Wall because she had attempted to cross State Route 28 at a point other than…”
Meyer v. Rapacz, 2011 Ohio 2537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3דWe find no evidence to suggest that Rapacz was speeding.”
Koepke v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 Ohio 4084 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “48(A), "[e]very pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway.”
Smith v. Bond, 2016 Ohio 5883 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “48(A) provides, “[e]very pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles * * * upon the roadway.” Nonetheless, “[t]his section does not relieve the…”
Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 4511.48 {¶39} It is well settled that “ ‘a cause of action for negligence requires proof of (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach and injury, and (4) damages.”
Neu v. Est. of Nussbaum, 2015 Ohio 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 7} Appellant filed a civil complaint against Nussbaum in the Butler County Common Pleas Court, alleging that he was negligent for (1) violating his duty of care under R.C. 4511.48 to avoid hitting a pedestrian, (2) failing to maintain the assured clear distance ahead as…”
Kerns v. Hale, 2023 Ohio 1175 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Construing R.C. 4511.48(A), which essentially addresses the rights of drivers and pedestrians, the trial court found “there is no evidence that Defendants were negligent or reckless in their actions surrounding the vehicle-pedestrian accident of September 17, 2018.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.48(C): 3 cases
In re T.B., 2026 Ohio 1309 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). “had violated Ohio’s pedestrian right-of-way law, R.C. 4511.48, which would be a minor misdemeanor for an adult.”
Neu v. Est. of Nussbaum, 2015 Ohio 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 7} Appellant filed a civil complaint against Nussbaum in the Butler County Common Pleas Court, alleging that he was negligent for (1) violating his duty of care under R.C. 4511.48 to avoid hitting a pedestrian, (2) failing to maintain the assured clear distance ahead as…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.48(E): 9 cases
Neu v. Est. of Nussbaum, 2015 Ohio 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “{¶ 7} Appellant filed a civil complaint against Nussbaum in the Butler County Common Pleas Court, alleging that he was negligent for (1) violating his duty of care under R.C. 4511.48 to avoid hitting a pedestrian, (2) failing to maintain the assured clear distance ahead as…”
McCullough v. Youngstown Sch. Dist., 2019 Ohio 3965 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Finally, “Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles, trackless trolleys, or streetcars upon the roadway.”
Smith v. Bond, 2016 Ohio 5883 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “48(A) provides, “[e]very pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles * * * upon the roadway.” Nonetheless, “[t]his section does not relieve the…”
Kerns v. Hale, 2024 Ohio 2061 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 4511.48 {¶39} It is well settled that “ ‘a cause of action for negligence requires proof of (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct, (2) breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the breach and injury, and (4) damages.”
Meyer v. Rapacz, 2011 Ohio 2537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “We find no evidence to suggest that Rapacz was speeding.”
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.