My Negligence Per Se case in CA did not go as you described: I was riding my road bicycle in a marked bike lane along a wide open stretch of road where there were no cross streets, sidewalks, intersections, etc, and there were posted 'no stopping at any time' signs. A traffic control flatbed truck (professionals), with an arrow board above the cab, was blocking my lane and extending 20" into the 60mph+ lane to my left. My head was down, cropping the sky and I did not see the truck or arrow board until I was about 75' from the truck. Due to shock, panic, hesitation and another rider on my back wheel, and 60mph traffic to my left, I could not fully get around the truck and we both clipped it, causing permanent hand/wrist injury to both of us. My negligence is obvious, but the traffic control company did not set out cones, signs, a flagman and they were working in violation of their City Permit that required them to perform this work after 1am. They also expected me to vier into 60mph traffic to pass them...all in direct violation of the CA Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Yet, they were never required to explain why they broke these requirements and why those violations did not contribute to the accident. Was my lawyer the third negligent party in that courtroom?
Res ipsa could have been used to show negligence in that sort of case, yes, but I believe the significance of that case was more about defining the parameters of the responsibilities owed by product manufacturers.
I love these videos; they have helped me so much! I am in my first year of law school & frankly, I don’t know what I would have done without LawShelf!
You are so welcome!
My Negligence Per Se case in CA did not go as you described: I was riding my road bicycle in a marked bike lane along a wide open stretch of road where there were no cross streets, sidewalks, intersections, etc, and there were posted 'no stopping at any time' signs. A traffic control flatbed truck (professionals), with an arrow board above the cab, was blocking my lane and extending 20" into the 60mph+ lane to my left. My head was down, cropping the sky and I did not see the truck or arrow board until I was about 75' from the truck. Due to shock, panic, hesitation and another rider on my back wheel, and 60mph traffic to my left, I could not fully get around the truck and we both clipped it, causing permanent hand/wrist injury to both of us.
My negligence is obvious, but the traffic control company did not set out cones, signs, a flagman and they were working in violation of their City Permit that required them to perform this work after 1am. They also expected me to vier into 60mph traffic to pass them...all in direct violation of the CA Manual of Unified Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Yet, they were never required to explain why they broke these requirements and why those violations did not contribute to the accident. Was my lawyer the third negligent party in that courtroom?
You weren't part of the protected class. Those regulations are in place to protect workers from traffic, not negligent cyclists.
Just a wow explanation
Thank you
res ipsa loquitur is cool af and doesnt have to be always a negative statement
My colleague was asked what it meant and said "it is what it is"😂
Excellent video.
Thank you very much!
Does the maxim of res ipsa loquitor applicable in the case of Donoghue v. stevenson ?
Res ipsa could have been used to show negligence in that sort of case, yes, but I believe the significance of that case was more about defining the parameters of the responsibilities owed by product manufacturers.
Excellent content!!
Much appreciated!
I appreciate the contents... But advisable to slow down a little bit🙂
you can just change the speed of the youtube video... try x .75
Great explanation. What app/ website was used to create this animation??
Adobe Premier
so helpful, thank you!
Glad it was helpful!