What is the test for establishing a presumption of negligence against a driver in a collision involving a pedestrian in a crosswalk?

Appellant argues that respondent was negligent as a matter of law and that his negligence was a proximate cause of appellant's injuries. Respondent had a duty to use ordinary care to prevent injury to pedestrians, and a driver in California has a duty to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. (Fischer v. Keen (1941) 43 Cal.App.2d 244, 248; Monreal v. Tobin (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1350.)²

A presumption of breach of duty arises when the following elements are met: "(i) the defendant violates a statute or ordinance, (ii) the violation proximately causes the injury, (iii) the injury results from an occurrence of the nature that the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent, and (iv) the injured person is within the class for whose protection the statute or ordinance was adopted." (Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 456, 484, citing Evid. Code, 669.) Appellant contends that she established facts supporting each of these elements, therefore she established a presumption of negligence as a matter of law.

Page 10