Under Louisiana law, when a driver of a car is in an accident there is a presumption of negligence for left-turning motorists, as a left turn is considered one of the most dangerous maneuvers that a motorist can execute. A left-turning motorist must ascertain whether a left turn can be completed safely before attempting to make such a turn. Additionally, a left-turning motorist must yield the right of way to oncoming traffic. The presumption of fault arises when there is proof that the left-turning motorist executed a left-hand turn and crossed the center line at the time of impact.
The burden of proof rests heavily on the left-turning motorist to explain how the accident happened and to show that he or she was free from negligence. This burden is not discharged by the mere signaling of an intention to turn. The giving of a signal is immaterial if the driver of the turning vehicle did not have the opportunity to make the left turn safely.
Louisiana jurisprudence has established that an oncoming driver has the right to assume that the left-turning motorist will yield to the oncoming driver’s right of way. However, a favored motorist (i.e., oncoming motorist) can still be attributed comparative fault if his or her substandard conduct contributed to the cause of the accident.
Although Louisiana’s presumption regarding left-turning motorists is long-standing, there are instances in which its application can lead to otherwise bizarre results. This was somewhat recently demonstrated in Dickerson v. RPM Pizza, LLC, 55-739-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 07/17/24).
Dickerson v. RPM Pizza, LLC – Background
Dickerson v. RPM Pizza, LLC provides us with an example of when the left-turning motorist presumption can be too strict. In Dickerson, RPM Pizza’s delivery driver was making a left turn when he collided with a motorcyclist on New Year’s Eve. The motorcyclist was legally blind and had THC and methamphetamines in his system. The pizza delivery driver saw no motorcycle headlight, and the investigating officer confirmed that the headlight was not turned on at the time of the accident. The motorcyclist had been “warned multiple times not to drive vehicles on the road,” and the cyclist had caused other motor vehicle accidents in the past. The motorcyclist was prescribed eyeglasses, but was not wearing them at the time of the accident; he claimed that he could still “see shapes from about four car lengths away.”
The defendant, RPM Pizza, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the motorcyclist solely caused the accident, and therefore no issue of genuine material fact existed. However, the court held that the issue of whether the motorcycle’s headlight was on at the time of the accident was still a genuine issue of material fact. Therefore, “whether [the pizza delivery driver] has discharged his burden as a left-turning motorist of explaining how the accident occurred and establishing that he was not at fault cannot be determined without weighing evidence and assessing credibility.” Thus, even if the motorcyclist was under the influence at the time of the accident, “a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether [the motorcyclist] could be found 25% or more at fault, if at all, for the accident.” Accordingly, the court denied RPM Pizza’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the considerations mentioned above were “more appropriate for a fault determination following a trial on the merits.”
Problem with Presumption of Negligence
The above case demonstrates the potential problems of the left-turning motorist presumption of negligence when faced with facts otherwise favorable to the left-turning motorist. Although the motorcyclist in Dickerson was legally blind, was not wearing his glasses, perhaps did not have his motorcycle headlight on, had been warned not to drive on prior occasions, and was under the influence of controlled substances at the time of the accident, the presumption of negligence against the left-turning pizza delivery driver was a chief factor in denial of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Without this presumption, a court would likely find the motorcyclist at 100% fault for the accident. However, under the presumption, the pizza delivery driver, the party that otherwise does not bear the burden of proof, has the heavier burden on fault determination just because he was making a left turn.
The presumption of negligence against a left-turning motorist should be revisited by Louisiana courts to try to address potential problems such as the one illustrated in the Dickerson case. Louisiana courts should clarify standards for when the presumption does not apply or soften the presumption when there are very concrete defenses on liability.