637So2d636



	Lutz v. City of Shreveport, 637 So2d 636 (1994), writ denied 642 So2d 1294 (1994). A ten-year-old bicyclist was riding on a road at 9:00 pm with his mother following in a pickup truck with the headlights lighted. The boy hit a pothole and was thrown from the bicycle. Witnesses testified the pothole was 14 to 18 inches in diameter, 6 to 8 inches deep. The city was found strictly liable. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, affirmed. "The applicable legal standards are well settled. The City has a duty to maintain its streets in a safe condition for use by the public. ... However, it is not liable for every defect or irregularity in a street, but only for the dangerous defect that creates an unreasonable risk of injury. ... To determine whether the defect complained of presented an unreasonable risk of harm, courts balance several factors, including the probability and gravity of the harm presented by the risk against the social utility of the thing involved. ... In each case, of course, the unreasonable character of the defect must be decided on the particular facts and circumstances presented. ... [...] "Based on this [testimonial] evidence and a photograph of the pothole taken shortly after the accident and before it was repaired, the trial court found that the hole was approximately 16 inches in diameter, and 7 inches deep, and that it was unreasonably dangerous. We find no manifest error in the trial court's conclusion. The evidence and testimony presented clearly provide a reasonable factual basis for the court's finding. The hole in question was quite large and was located in an area frequented by automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Under these circumstances the likelihood of harm was great, especially in light of the fact that there are no sidewalks running parallel to Blom Boulevard. [...] "The City argues that Lutz was comparatively negligent, and that any recovery should be reduced accordingly. Our review of this issue is governed by the manifest error rule since findings of the respective percentages of fault under LSA-C.C. Art. 2323 are factual in nature. ... "A bicyclist is subject to the same duties applicable to drivers of motor vehicles. ... One of those duties is to keep a proper lookout at all times. Thus a bicyclist has a duty to maintain a proper lookout for hazards; however, the bicyclist has a right to assume that the highway is reasonably safe for his use until such time as he knows, or should know, of an existing hazard. A bicyclist is not charged with a duty of guarding against unusual, unexpected or all but invisible hazards which he had no reason to anticipate would be in the roadway. ..."

		Home Disclaimer

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws