Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Overstreet finds that the appeals court improperly reversed the circuit court's ruling that the city owed the injured cyclist no duty of care because he was not an intended user of the roadway where he struck a pothole. Although a bike rental station was just 100 ft from where the accident occurred, there were no street signs designating the roadway as a bicycle lane. Bicyclists are permitted - but not intended - users of city streets in the absence of specific markings and signage. Reversed.
To read this case, start your 14-day free trial.
Request a free trial account to get access to more case data, documents, and features.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.