|
Taylor v. Bohemia, Inc., 688 P2d 1374 (1984). Judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals of Oregon reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Oregon Supreme Court denied review, 691 P2d 482 (1984). November 20, 1980, about 6:30 pm, a bicyclist was on a street with two primary traffic lanes (one in each direction) and bike lanes located on the two sides of the primary lanes, a parking strip next to each curb, and no turn lanes. The bicyclist had rear reflectors and a front generator light lit only when the front wheel was turning. Rear lights were not raised as an issue. The plaintiff bicyclist was in the primary traffic lane near the center line, in the process of making a left turn at a T intersection, where the intersecting street was on the bicyclist's left. A steady flow of oncoming traffic forced the bicyclist to stop and wait for a chance to turn. He did look over his shoulder once or twice after stopping, and did not observe any cars within the block immediately behind him. He was struck from behind by the defendant motorist, who said he did not see the bicyclist until the collision. The defendant argued the plaintiff violated the "as far right as practicable" rule and was legally required to remain to the right, even while turning. The court held the bicyclist was legally positioned for a left turn. The defendant argued the bicyclist failed to yield right-of-way. The court disagreed. "Rights-of-way are provided either by common law or by statute. The only common law right-of-way for motor vehicles exists in favor of an oncoming vehicle which is being met by one making a left turn. No Oregon court has ever recognized a common law or statutory right-of-way between vehicles traveling in the same direction. ... We see no reason why different rights-of-way rules should be applicable to bicycles than to motor vehicles in that respect."
The court also held that a bicyclist has a duty to maintain a lookout for danger, even given the right to assume overtaking traffic will see him and take necessary steps to avoid striking him. "Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that a bicyclist has no duty to keep a lookout over his shoulder for vehicles approaching from the rear. He suggests that the failure to give this instruction created the impression bicyclists use the roads at their own peril. We disagree.
"Although a bicyclist has the right to assume that those approaching him [will see him] and take proper steps to avoid colliding with him, ... he also has a duty to maintain a lookout in any direction from which danger could reasonably be anticipated. As stated in Valdin v. Holteen and Nordstrom, ... 'Although such lookout is largely confined to the road ahead and to the right an left at intersections, nevertheless, when the attention of the operator of a vehicle ahead has been called to the presence of a vehicle behind, such operator must maintain a lookout for the car approaching from the rear.' The rule is especially applicable when the vehicle ahead is executing a turn." |
|
