[oneshoe]

I don't know what country you live in but, in Arizona it is different:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...

The pedestrian had the right-away in this particular situation.

EDIT :: Looks like I read that first sentence wrong (my apologies)... "Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger"

Growing up in AZ I was always told that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right away - something I always thought was strange.

I do stand correct however.

[nickcoury]

My reading of it was the opposite: > Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

If a pedestrian is inside a crosswalk they almost always have the right of way. Outside a crosswalk it is not the case.

[sumeno]

That page is about crosswalks. The person who was hit was not in a crosswalk.

[mkolodny]

The link you shared disagrees with you - it says that in Arizona vehicles always have the right-of-way outside of crosswalks:

"Pedestrians must yield the right-of-way to vehicles when crossing outside of a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Where traffic control devices are in operation, pedestrians may only cross between two adjacent intersections in a marked crosswalk."

[oneshoe]

Looks like I read that first sentence wrong...

"Vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians within a crosswalk that are in the same half of the roadway as the vehicle or when a pedestrian is approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger"

Growing up in AZ I was always told that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right away - something I always thought was strange.

I do stand correct however.