Just as both prongs were in issue in Jamerson and Eldridge, they were in issue in this case. Therefore, the court was required to deliver the model jury instruction that explains both forms of causation, molded appropriately to the facts.
Furthermore, the court erred in rejecting defendant’s request that the court instruct the jury about the law governing crossing outside a crosswalk. Two aspects were relevant to the victim’s actions. First, the law states, “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 that it is impossible for the driver to yield or stop.” Second, the law states, “Every pedestrian upon 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.”
The court raises interesting questions that will likely have to be answered by the New Jersey Supreme Court. One is whether a defendant should contemplate that pedestrians will sometimes break the law with regard to crosswalks. Another is whether the law-breaking is too probable to excuse the defendant’s conduct.