Pedestrian Killed on Hageman Road Near Mohawk Street in Bakersfield; Driver Stayed at the Scene

What the Available Reporting Established

According to the Bakersfield Police Department, a male pedestrian was struck and killed on Hageman Road near Mohawk Street at approximately 12:15 a.m. on Friday, May 19, 2023. The pedestrian was reported to be outside a marked crosswalk at the time of impact. The driver — also identified as male — pulled over immediately, waited for officers, and cooperated with the investigation. Kern County Fire and Hall Ambulance responded and attempted life-saving measures. The pedestrian was pronounced deceased at the scene.

Initial findings ruled out excessive speed, drugs, and alcohol as contributing factors. The reporting reviewed for this rebuild noted that this was the 27th pedestrian fatality in Kern County that calendar year — a pattern Bakersfield-area road safety advocates have flagged repeatedly. The accessible coverage did not include identification of the pedestrian or final findings on cause.

Why “Outside the Crosswalk” Does Not End the Civil Question

When a pedestrian is struck outside a marked crosswalk, the immediate legal reaction is often that the pedestrian carries most of the fault. That is not how California law actually works. California uses pure comparative negligence: fault is apportioned among the parties, and the family’s civil claim is reduced by the pedestrian’s share of fault — but not eliminated by it.

Drivers in California also have an ongoing duty of care that does not switch off at the edge of a crosswalk. They are expected to maintain a proper lookout, drive at a speed appropriate to conditions including visibility and lighting, and reasonably avoid pedestrians who are visible in or near the roadway. Cases where the pedestrian was outside a crosswalk are harder than cases where they were inside one — but they are not foreclosed.

Why the Driver Cooperating Is Not the Same as the Driver Being Cleared

Staying at the scene and cooperating with police is exactly what the law requires under California Vehicle Code §§ 20001 and 20003 — and it removes the fleeing-driver criminal exposure that defines hit-and-run cases. It is, however, distinct from a civil-fault determination.

Civil liability turns on whether the driver met the duty of care under the conditions present: lighting on the road segment, the driver’s attention and reaction time, speed appropriate to conditions, headlight aim, glare, any obstructions, and whether a reasonable driver would have seen and avoided the pedestrian. A driver can have done everything right at the scene after the crash and still bear some civil responsibility for the conduct that led to it. Investigation typically works through scene reconstruction, sight-line analysis, vehicle data, and witness accounts to answer that question.

What That Means for a Possible Civil Claim

For surviving family in a case like this, the realistic civil analysis runs through three steps. First, what does the completed police investigation actually conclude about the driver’s conduct, the pedestrian’s position, and lighting and sight-line conditions at 12:15 a.m. on that stretch of Hageman Road? Second, what apportionment of fault would a jury reasonably reach under California’s pure comparative negligence rule? Third, what insurance coverage is available on each side — including any UM/UIM coverage on the family’s own household policy that might respond to a portion of the loss.

An honest case evaluation gives a family a straight answer about all three before recommending a path. Wrongful death and pedestrian injury claims share the same statutes but very different evidence profiles depending on the comparative-fault picture.

Case Context