| Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co., 386 So2d 165 (1980). A minor bicyclist riding on a sidewalk against traffic was struck by a right turning motorist. From the majority opinion: "Charles Fontenot testified that he was riding his bicycle along the sidewalk which traversed the outer portion of the two filling station entrances. As he was so proceeding, he saw the Pomier vehicle proceeding toward him as he was traversing the entrance. He stated that he attempted to avoid the accident by speeding up but this was to no avail. The vehicle suddenly struck him, causing injuries. "As heretofore reiterated, Rhonda [the driver of the vehicle]'s contention that her view of the bicycle was obstructed by a car leaving the station in the same entrance she was in is without merit. The facts do not support such a contention. Rhonda had a clear view of the entrance and the bicycle proceeding across the entrance. Rhonda was not keeping a proper lookout as she crossed the sidewalk entering the station. The sole cause of the accident was the negligence of Rhonda Pomier. Charles Fontenot was free of contributory negligence." From the concurring opinion, same case: "Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. ... marked the demise of the plea of contributory negligence as a defense to a claim arising out of a pedestrian-automobile collision. In Baumgartner, the Supreme Court adopted the 'humanitarian doctrine' and held that a defendant could not avail itself of the plea of contributory negligence against a pedestrian who was struck by an automobile while he was in a marked crosswalk. In so holding, the court stated: '... The operator of a motor vehicle, a dangerous instrumentality, has the constant duty to watch out for the possible negligent acts of pedestrians and avoid injuring them. A higher standard of care than that required of pedestrians is imposed upon the motorist commensurate with the hazards his conduct inflicts upon the public safety. Therefore, he should not be able to escape responsibility for injury to the pedestrian by pleading the latter's negligence. And since, in such case, a plaintiff's contributory negligence will not bar his recovery, the last clear chance doctrine, used to avoid the harsh effects of the contributory negligence defense, is not at issue.' [...] "After a careful study of Baumgartner and the policy and reasons underpinning that decision, I believe that a plea of contributory negligence is not a defense to a bicycle-automobile collision. Bicyclists frequently traverse the same areas pedestrians do and are subject to virtually the same perils of the highway. Bicyclists are equally vulnerable to injuries resulting from collisions with automobiles as are pedestrians." |
||||
| Home Disclaimer |
||||