Is jaywalking illegal in California, Texas and Washington?

By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.

The rules at a glance

What California’s Freedom to Walk Act changed

Assembly Bill 2147, the Freedom to Walk Act by Assemblymember Phil Ting, was signed by Governor Newsom on September 30, 2022, and took effect January 1, 2023, according to CBS News and the author’s release. It did not erase the crossing rules. Section 21955(a) still says that between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals or officers, pedestrians must cross only in a crosswalk.

What changed is enforcement. Under Section 21955(b), a peace officer may not stop a pedestrian for that violation unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or a device moving only by human power, such as a bicycle. Section 21961 puts the same limit on stops under city or county ordinances that ban crossing outside crosswalks.

Both sections say the pedestrian still has a duty to use due care for their own safety, and the driver still has a duty of due care toward any pedestrian in the roadway. Section 21954(b) says the same about drivers. So a safe mid-block crossing is no longer a reason to be stopped, and an unsafe one still counts against the walker in a crash case.

Texas: still a ticketable offense

Texas keeps the older rules. A pedestrian crossing anywhere other than a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield the right-of-way to vehicles, and a pedestrian may cross an intersection diagonally only where a traffic control device allows it (Section 552.005). Breaking a rule in this part of the code is a misdemeanor, and where no other penalty is set the fine runs from $1 to $200.

Texas drivers have duties of their own. Section 552.008 says that, notwithstanding the other pedestrian rules, a driver must exercise due care to avoid hitting a pedestrian on a roadway, sound the horn when necessary, and take proper precautions on seeing a child or an obviously confused or incapacitated person on the road. A pedestrian’s ticket does not cancel the driver’s duty to watch the road.

Washington: no California-style change

Washington’s RCW 46.61.240 still requires a pedestrian outside a marked or unmarked crosswalk to yield to all vehicles. It also bars crossing at an unmarked crosswalk where an official sign prohibits it. A violation is a traffic infraction, which Washington law separates from criminal offenses.

The only recent change came in 2025. The legislature let local governments designate “shared streets,” and RCW 46.61.240 now says it does not apply on them. On a shared street, vehicles must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian (RCW 46.61.197). As of November 2026, the official RCW text has no rule like California’s limit on stops.

What a jaywalking pedestrian can still recover

All three states let a pedestrian who shares some fault recover, but Texas cuts off recovery above 50 percent. California’s Li v. Yellow Cab Co. adopted pure comparative negligence, so damages are reduced in proportion to each person’s fault. Washington’s RCW 4.22.005 works the same way. In Texas, a claimant more than 50 percent responsible recovers nothing (CPRC 33.001); below that, damages drop by the claimant’s percentage (CPRC 33.012).

These are round hypothetical numbers. A real case turns on the evidence and the insurance available.

How the crossing violation is used also differs. In California, an insurer may argue that breaking Section 21955 raises a presumption of negligence under Evidence Code 669, and that presumption can be rebutted by showing the pedestrian acted as a reasonably careful person would. In Washington, breaking a traffic statute is generally only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se (RCW 5.40.050). Washington has one sharp exception for walkers who had been drinking: it is a complete defense if the injured person was under the influence, the intoxication was a proximate cause, and the person was more than 50 percent at fault (RCW 5.40.060).

What this means for your case

Write down exactly where you crossed and where the nearest traffic signals are. That distance can decide whether Section 21955(a) or its Texas and Washington twins even apply. Lighting, the driver’s speed and whether the driver looked up from a phone often matter as much as the spot you chose. Video from shops and buses is often overwritten quickly, so ask for it early.

If the crash was in California, our guide for a pedestrian hit by a car covers insurance and first steps, and hit in a crosswalk covers marked crossings. For Los Angeles claims, see hit while crossing the street in Los Angeles. The fault rules for all three states are compared in comparative fault in California, Texas and Washington. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou.

Common questions

Related pages

Injury law FAQs

Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Texas cases are handled by the firm’s Texas-licensed attorneys, Joyce Ondich and John Efstathiou. Last reviewed: November 7, 2026.