Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3550 (2026)
Pedestrians under influence of alcohol or controlled substance.
✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
PA-LEGpalegis.us
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 3550. Pedestrians under influence of alcohol or controlled substance.
A pedestrian who is under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance to a degree which renders the pedestrian a hazard shall not walk or be upon a highway except on a sidewalk.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1984–2017 · leading case: Ackerman v. Delcomico, 486 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1984).
Ackerman v. Delcomico, 486 A.2d 410 (Pa. 1984). “Ackerman contends that the lower court erred in: (1) allowing the introduction of evidence on the issue of intoxication of appellant, and, (2) charging the jury on 75 Pa.C.S. § 3550, when there was no evidence that the appellant was a "hazard" under that section.”
Coughlin, A., Aplt. v. Massaquoi, U., 170 A.3d 399 (Pa. 2017). “While, in my view, the relevance of evidence of intoxication in a civil case generally requires supporting proof that the actor was causatively negligent, as to pedestrians, this relevancy analysis is reflected in the public policy considerations embodied in the legislature’s…”
Commonwealth v. Bullers, 637 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1994). “§ 5503, pedestrian under the influence, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3550 (see Commonwealth v. Neufer, 264 Pa.”
Clinton v. Giles, 719 A.2d 314 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998). “75 Pa.C.S. § 3550. Although there are few cases involving intoxicated pedestrians who have been struck by a motor vehicle, twenty-five years ago this Court stated: evidence tending to establish intoxication on the part of a pedestrian is inadmissible unless such evidence proves…”
Coughlin, A., Aplt. v. Massaquoi, U. (Pa. 2017). “While, in my view, the relevance of evidence of intoxication in a civil case generally requires supporting proof that the actor was causatively negligent, as to pedestrians, this relevancy analysis is reflected in the public policy considerations embodied in the legislature’s…”
Dragovits v. Lehr, 45 Pa. D. & C.4th 420 (2000). “Consequently, evidence of plaintiff’s BAC is inadmissible under Pa.R.E. 403.”
Leon v. Peters Twp., 43 Pa. D. & C.3d 632 (1986). “In support of this assertion, plaintiff points to section 3550 of the Motor Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §3550, which states: “Section 3550.”
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.