Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 346.25 (2026)
Crossing at place other than crosswalk
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
346.25346.25 Crossing at place other than crosswalk. Every pedestrian, bicyclist, or rider of an electric scooter or an electric personal assistive mobility device crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
346.25 AnnotationSection 891.44 provides an exception to this section, and the standard instruction is not to be given when the pedestrian is a child under seven. Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp., 56 Wis. 2d 231, 201 N.W.2d 745 (1972).
346.25 AnnotationThis section does not apply to bicyclists operating on the roadway and only applies to bicyclists acting as pedestrians by operating on sidewalks and within crosswalks. Chernetski v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 183 Wis. 2d 68, 515 N.W.2d 283 (Ct. App. 1994).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1950–2021 · leading case: Chernetski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 515 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
Chernetski v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 515 N.W.2d 283 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994). “02(4)(a), STATS., when it provided that a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway has all of the rights and duties of a motorist, but "subject to special provisions applicable to bicycles.”
Rossow v. Lathrop, 123 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 1963). “In the instant case, where it is a verity that Dennis did not attempt to cross Highway W at either a marked or unmarked crosswalk, the only instruction which should have been given on right-of-way should have been grounded on sec. 346.25, Stats. [1] Furthermore, if in giving…”
Staples v. Glienke, 416 N.W.2d 920 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987). “Section 346.25, Stats., provides: Crossing at place other than crosswalk.”
Thoreson v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 201 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. 1972). “2 It is argued LisowsM is bad law because it vitiates the command of sec. 346.25, Stats., requires an autoist to make an instantaneous determination of the age of the pedestrian darting in front of his car, and denies equal protection of the laws by creating a classification for…”
Buel v. La Crosse Transit Co., 253 N.W.2d 232 (Wis. 1977). “The answer of the defendants denies that Shanklin was negligent in any respect and alleges that Buel was solely responsible for the incident causing his injuries in that he was negligent in the following respects; failing to maintain proper lookout; failing to position himself…”
Hoeft v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 168 N.W.2d 134 (Wis. 1969). “If there were any doubt of this meaning, sec. 346.25, Stats., provides: *709 “Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.”
Wicker v. Hadler, 205 N.W.2d 770 (Wis. 1973). “10 Rather, it is a case where we exercise our discretion to order a new trial because it appears to us that the real controversy has not been fully tried and that justice has probably miscarried.”
Johnson Ex Rel. Kennedy v. Owen, 528 N.W.2d 511 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “The defendant therein unsuccessfully maintained that this general provision for yielding the right-of-way did not apply to approaching bicycles; instead, he relied upon § 346.25, STATS., which requires pedestrians and bicyclists crossing a roadway at any point other than within…”
State v. Decker, 45 N.W.2d 98 (Wis. 1950). “Sec. 346.25, Stats., requires the employer who is designated as principal to make but one report to the *180 secretary of state within thirty days after sine die adjournment of the legislature.”
Pingel v. Thielman, 121 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 1963). “1 If he was not walking within the lines of the south crosswalk while cross *254 ing, then defendant Thielman was entitled to the right-of-way under sec. 346.25, Stats. Not only do the foregoing computations suggest that plaintiff started to cross against the light, but the…”
Riel v. United States (E.D. Wis. 2021). “) In response, Riel contends that an issue of fact exists as to whether, at the time her foot was run over, she was a “pedestrian” within the meaning of Wisconsin Statute section 346.25. (ECF No. 17 at 4.) If she was not, then the United States’ argument that she was as a matter…”
Est. of Emilly Zhu v. Brian J. Hodgson (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “] § 346.25 … as well as [WIS. STAT.] §§ 346.”
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.