Michigan Pedestrian Accident Law

Michigan No-Fault Coverage for Pedestrians

Under Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Act (MCL 500.3101 et seq.), pedestrians injured by motor vehicles are entitled to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits — regardless of fault. PIP benefits may include:

The order of priority for who pays PIP benefits is:

1. The pedestrian’s own No-Fault policy
2. A resident relative’s policy
3. The vehicle owner’s or operator’s insurer
4. The Michigan Assigned Claims Plan (if no other policy applies)

All No-Fault claims must be filed within one year of the accident to preserve benefits.

This one-year deadline, under MCL 500.3145, is paused from the date a specific claim for benefits is submitted to the insurer until the insurer formally denies it, as long as the claim is pursued with reasonable diligence — so submitting a claim promptly, even before hiring an attorney, can help preserve benefits that might otherwise look time-barred.

Pain and Suffering and Wrongful Death Claims

In addition to No-Fault benefits, pedestrians may pursue a civil liability claim against the negligent driver for:

To recover these damages, Michigan law requires that the pedestrian’s injuries amount to death, permanent serious disfigurement, or a “serious impairment of body function” — an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s general ability to lead their normal life (MCL 500.3135). A claim for these damages must generally be filed within three years of the crash (MCL 600.5805(2)).

For fatal crashes, surviving family members may pursue a wrongful death action under Michigan’s Wrongful Death Act (MCL 600.2922) to recover for funeral costs, loss of financial support, and loss of companionship.

Common Pedestrian Injuries

Pedestrians are completely exposed in a collision and frequently sustain:

These injuries often require months of treatment and rehabilitation — and can lead to permanent loss of independence or income.

Comparative Fault in Pedestrian Cases

Michigan follows a modified comparative negligence rule for these claims under MCL 500.3135(2)(b): a pedestrian cannot recover pain-and-suffering damages if their fault is equal to or greater than the combined fault of everyone else involved in the crash — meaning the bar applies at an even 50-50 split, not only when the pedestrian is more than half at fault. In Rowland v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2025), the court applied this rule to bar a pedestrian’s claim entirely, holding that a man who scrambled across a busy highway and then opened his car door into traffic was not less negligent than the bus driver who struck him. Insurers often argue that the pedestrian “came out of nowhere” or was “not in a crosswalk.” This is why it is important to investigate intersection design, driver sightlines, speed, and lighting conditions to prove full liability where it belongs.