That actually depends on the state. “Arizona law requires pedestrians to cross the street at corners and/or designated crosswalks...[if] it seems unlikely that a driver should have avoided---as in a case where the pedestrian darts right out into traffic, then it may be that the pedestrian will be deemed 100% at fault for his/her injuries.” [1]
I’m sure that Uber will be sued over this, and they’ll probably settle quickly and quietly to avoid mass hysteria resulting from misleading headlines such as this one. But that doesn’t mean the jaywalking pedestrian isn’t at fault. Walk in traffic, die in traffic. It’s a pretty straightforward physics problem.
[1] http://www.zacharlawblog.com/2015/11/whos-at-fault-in-an-acc...
> Arizona law also requires drivers of motor vehicles to pay attention and to drive "reasonably" for all traffic conditions. "All traffic conditions" includes the existence of pedestrians in or near the roadways.
> So, should an accident occur between a jaywalker and a car---if shown that the driver could have/should have seen the person and could have/should have been able to avoid, then without question the driver can be held responsible.
We don't know enough either way to cast judgment on fault yet. But to your original point, about the headline being misleading, we don't know enough to know whether the victim was jaywalking, only that preliminary reports seem to suggest she was engaging in that behavior. But labeling her a "jaywalker" strongly implies that she was cited as such, which of course hasn't happened in this case. Calling her a "pedestrian" is a fair choice at this point, not a "misleading" one.
edit: the headline for this story has since been changed from "Self-driving Uber car hits, kills pedestrian in Arizona" to "Self-driving Uber car kills Arizona woman crossing street", which seems fair to me.