What is the standard of care required by a municipality for pedestrians crossing a roadway?

In Holmes v. Kingston (City), supra, a university student caught her left shoe in a crack in the pavement of a municipal highway causing her to fall and suffer a fracture. The municipality was aware that students and others crossed the highway in the middle of the block instead of crossing the highway at the crosswalk. Pedlar J. stated at paras. 19-22: … Roads are primarily intended for motor vehicle traffic and pedestrians using them cannot reasonably expect them to be in perfectly flat and level condition at all times in all locations. … Pedestrians, who chose to convenience themselves by crossing a roadway primarily designed for motor vehicle traffic, excluding highly unusual circumstances, must take the roadway as they find it. … The cases relied upon by the plaintiff, which resulted in a roadway being found to require a higher standard of care for pedestrian traffic, included a designated crosswalk area or highly unusual circumstances where the sidewalk had been blocked by the municipality and the pedestrians were forced to use the roadway. … There may, in fact, be circumstances where an increased standard of care is required for pedestrian use of a roadway. [underline added]