|
Robertson v. Penn and American Indemnity Company, 472 So2d 927 (1985), writ denied 476 So2d 353 (1985). An 11 year old bicyclist riding on the right side of a narrow two lane road was struck by an overtaking motorist. A witness testified that the motorist blew her horn close to the bicyclist, and the bicyclist reacted to the horn by looking over his shoulder and pulling the bicycle to the left. The witness also testified that the car did not appear to slow down prior to impact. The trial court found the bicyclist to be 95% negligent. The motorist was found 75% negligent on appeal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, with all damages in the amount of $10,000 assessed to the defendants. From the court's opinion: "It is well settled that Louisiana jurisprudence places a high degree of care upon a motorist who sees a child on or near the road and imposes upon him a duty to anticipate that the child, possessed of limited judgment, might be unable to appreciate impending danger, is likely to be inattentive, and might suddenly place himself in a position of peril. However, the law does not make the driver an insurer of a child's safety. ... A motorist who observes the presence of a child on a bicycle ahead of him is placed under a high degree of care, and should anticipate that the child is possessed of limited judgment and that the child's action might be sudden and unpredictable. ...
"Bicyclists, however, also have responsibilities and are subject to the same duties applicable to drivers of vehicles when driving upon highways in this State, and thus have a never-ceasing duty to keep a proper lookout at all times. ...
"Where there is no bicycle path or shoulder as here, the bicyclist has no choice but to ride on the highway. Larry was riding where he should be, about one or two feet from the edge of the road in the right lane. If he was turning left he should have made certain there were no cars behind him before doing so. Even if he merely pulled the wheel to the left when startled, his reaction was careless. Although the driver maintained she was doing all within her power to avoid hitting plaintiff, had she been going slow enough and maintaining enough control for the conditions which warranted extreme caution she should have been able to avoid the accident. ... If defendatn honked her horn when she was 50 to 75 yards from Larry, she should have been aware of his inattention. Or, if she honked just as she was beside him, she should have been aware that she could startle him with unpredictable results. In either case, she failed to exercise all maneuvers possible to avoid injury, since the location of her car after impact indicates she was too far into the right lane to pass him safely." |
|
