[Continued from part 1 of Schallenberger v. Rudd.]

"This brings us to the final issue, which pertains to the right-of-way in an intersection with traffic control signals.  K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1508(c)(1) provides that vehicular traffic facing a steady red light shall stop and remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown.  K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 8-1508(c)(2) provides for an exception to the effect that, unless specifically prohibited by sign, vehicular traffic may cautiously turn right on a steady red light after coming to a complete stop, but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians on the crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection.  We construe this section to mean users of ... human-powered conveyances using the sidewalk also may lawfully use the crosswalk with the same rights as pedestrians, to which a vehicle turning right on a red light after a complete stop must yield the right-of-way.

"The jury should have been instructed that, if Schallenberger was riding on the sidewalk, which she could legally do, she had the right-of-way in using the crosswalk.  If the jury believed Schallenberger was riding in the roadway in the wrong traffic lane, she was in violation of the vehicular traffic regulations and Rudd had the right-of-way if she stopped at the red light.  If the jury finds Schallenberger was in the roadway but Rudd failed to stop at the light, the parties are in pari delicto.  In any case, causation of the accident and the resulting injury remains an additional jury question."
Home
Disclaimer
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1