In general in North America, pedestrians have the right-of-way. A skateboard could possibly be considered a vehicle in some fringe way, but these young ladies are essentially pedestrians.
Right-of-way did not help them physically, could help them legally.
That's an interesting possibility regarding pedestrians. I usually think of them having the right of way when crossing a street rather than walking or skateboarding in the street. I recall cases in which people walking on a road or highway at night have been struck and killed. Generally, as long as the driver doesn't leave, there have been no charges filed because the pedestrian was somewhere a driver would not expect someone to be and was not visible.
I expect that to be MK's defense for running into the girls, although it wasn't totally dark. Her attorney will probably say that she wasn't expecting skateboarders in the road and couldn't stop in time. That may be a valid defense, but it doesn't factor in alcohol, possible speeding and leaving the scene.
On the other side, the prosecutor could argue that it wasn't dark, the road was straight and not heavily traveled and that the girls probably reasoned they could easily move out of the way into the other lane or even dive into the ditch. They were facing traffic, as they should have been. Even though it wasn't the best decision to skateboard there, I can see why they could have reasoned that it was safe. They may even have been allowed to do it before.
If Kiya's parents are filing claims with Fortuna (or the county) because the road has no shoulders (my theory, not necessarily fact), I don't think they will get very far. It is not the
reason the girls were killed and is an attempt to lessen MK's responsibility. But it's a smart move by her attorneys if they win a settlement because it could be used at trial...."See, the county admitted the road was unsafe." I still don't understand why Joe Kitchen's attorney would think filing a claim is a good idea though.