Bird v. BlackBird v. Black
This is an action for personal injuries and property damages growing out of a collision between a bicyclist and a motor vehicle. The plaintiff, Keith W. Bird (Bird), was the bicyclist. Richard W. Black (Black) wаs following Bird driving a 1979 Toyota. The trial court found both parties negligent and rejected all claims. Intеrnational Indemnity Company, Black’s collision insurer, reconvened for Black’s collision damаges but did not appeal from the trial court’s rejection of its subrogation claim. The only aрpeal is that of the plaintiff, Bird. We affirm.
Bird was riding his bicycle northerly on Williams avenue in Natchitoches, Louisiana, at 3:15 PM on June 15,1979. Bird was being followed by Black who sought to pass Bird. The accident ocсurred in the left (southbound) lane as Bird attempted to make a left turn. The trial court rejected Bird’s triаl testimony to the effect that he gave a left turn signal after having noting Black’s approach from the rear and upon further concluding that it was safe to execute the left turn. Instead, the triаl court accepted statements given by Bird prior to trial that he did not see the Black vehicle, he did not know where the Black vehicle came from and did not see it until he was hit.
The trial court also concluded that Black was “traveling at an excessive rate of speed under the prevailing circumstances and that had he been traveling at a lesser speed he could have avoided the collision caused by the negligent acts of Mr. Bird.”
Our review of the record reveals no manifest error in the trial court’s conclusions, and it cannot be said that he was clearly wrong in concluding that Bird and Black were guilty of concurrent negligence which caused the accident.
Appellant Bird urges certain jurisprudence as showing he was not guilty of negligence whiсh barred his recovery. He cites Adams v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,
Bird also relies on the concurring opinion in Fontenot v. American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co.,
Our distinguished colleague, Judge Foret, agreed with the result in Fontenot but disagreеd with the holding on the contributory negligence issue. Judge Foret took the position that where there is a collision between a motorist and a bicycle, the responsibilities and duties of the bicyclist should be equated to those of a pedestrian as set forth in Baumgartner v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.,
We hold that a person riding on a bicycle in a roadway, using the roadway on the same manner and mode as a motorist, has the same obligations аnd duties as that
Plaintiff-appellant urges that as stated in Hanks v. Melancon, supra, a bicyclist like a motorist must ascertain whether a left turn may be safely made withоut “danger from normal overtaking or oncoming traffic.” Appellant further urges that, because of its speed, the Black vehicle was not a normal overtaking vehicle. We do not find the evidence of speed of Black’s vehicle (which is not exceptionally graphic or specifiс) is convincing that the vehicle was not “normal” in the context in question. The situation was not such as to convince us that Bird was relieved of his duty to make certain he could make his left turn maneuver.
Finally, plaintiff-appellant invokes the doctrine of last clear chance. In this regard Bird failed to bear the burden of proof in establishing the essential elements necessary to bring the doctrine into application. Jackson v. Watson,
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant.
AFFIRMED.
FORET, J., concurs in the result.