34 Trial Lawyer • Fall 2022 Rian Peck By Rian Peck We’ve all been there. On foot and trying to cross a busy intersection in Portland, with cars zooming by, their drivers unaware that a pedestrian is waiting to cross. They can’t see us behind the row of parked cars lining the edge of the street. And we, too, have a hard time seeing past that line of parked vehicles to see if cars, bikes or other hazards are oncoming. We’ve probably all developed our own way of coping with this phenomenon. I, personally, choose to be audacious, forcing oncoming drivers to make eye contact with me as I dramatically raise one leg to waist level and stomp my way into the crosswalk. Others do the “Portland Peek,” standing in front of the nearest parked car and then keeping their feet firmly planted as they hinge at the hip and peek their heads out to assess whether it’s safe to cross. For many Portlanders, this little dance at intersections is just a fact of life. We develop our coping mechanisms, of course, but we often do so subconsciously in the moment, while our conscious thoughts circle around what to make for dinner or finally conjure up a really great comeback for that conversation we had an hour ago. Those of us who accept the status quo are not aware that, decades ago, traffic engineers devised a solution — commonly called “daylighting”— to prevent intersections from having such poor visibility. “Daylighting” means setting back parking and other visual obstructions far enough from the corners of intersections that drivers, pedestrians and cyclists have a clear view of one another. Portland’s city traffic engineers have long resisted the idea of daylighting intersections citywide. Daylighting means removing parking, and parking, as one of our OTLA colleagues half-jokes, “is a Second Amendment issue in Portland.” But just as we have seen in the context of the real Second Amendment debate, political handwringing often has devastating consequences. That was the case for Elijah Edward Coe, who was killed in a crash at the intersection of East Burnside and 17th Avenues. A driver trying to turn left off 17th and onto Burnside could not see Coe on his motorcycle through the row of parked vehicles. Though the City of Portland had received several reports of the intersection being unsafe, the city continued to invite drivers to park their cars all the way up to the corner of the intersection (by placing a 15-minute parking sign). It was only after Coe died that the city finally decided daylighting that intersection seemed like a good idea. Litigation Beginning several months ago, I became more immersed in the daylighting issue as I was invited to work with OTLA members Scott Kocher and Cody Hoesly on the Coe Estate’s wrongful death case. As I worked on briefs and motions for the case, I became certain we were going to succeed in holding the city liable. Just a few weeks ago, though, we received an order from the trial court granting the city’s motion for summary judgment on discretionary immunity. Naturally, we feel the ruling was incorrect. With the possibility of appeal still open, however, I will hold off on a detailed discussion about the ruling. In the meantime, I feel it is safe for me to pass on to others the lessons to be learned from this case, especially for lawyers (like me) who are reformed civil defense lawyers and new to plaintiff-side personal injury and wrongful death work. Know the framework We wear a lot of different hats as lawyers. For some cases, we become DAYLIGHTING INTERSECTIONS: A WORK IN PROGRESS
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTY1NDIzOQ==