Backing up a bit, I've just read the article.
The story explains that the driver moved over to avoid oncoming traffic, hitting the girl who he'd just not seen. Very easy to see how this happened now. You're driving at night on an unlit road, your eyes adjust to the dark. An oncoming vehicle rounds a bend and your night vision is wrecked for a moment until your eyes adjust. Something small and dark in the shadows off to the side is going to be incredibly difficult to see.
the obvious action the pedestrian should have taken in this particular case is to get in a car. There's no evidence at all that any other action by them would have prevented the accident.
There's no evidence that getting in a car would have prevented an accident either.
There might not be evidence that "any other action" would have prevented the accident, but it would seem plausible that the driver would have been less likely to have collided with something if it'd have been more visible, would it not?
Just so we're clear, incidentally, I'm not talking about 'blame' from an insurance point of view. In terms of accountability, it's a fairly cut and dried case given she was a minor. Though, why she was walking home in the dark on unlit roads and wearing headphones is a question that should be directed towards her parents perhaps. The fact that the insurance is trying to weasel out of paying is fairly deplorable.
When I say blame, I mean the moral "it was all your fault" sort of blame. Having read the article I'm not even convinced that blame is the right word, it's a tragic set of circumstances that lead to an accident.