My bad. Got confused. Felony hit & run. DUI came out of nowhere. Sorry.
Nothing in the article however indicates that the driver was confused about the bike lane. So I am still wondering how this became the the arugable basis to support this award. Sure there are prior fatalities, but were they in fact due to confusion as to the bike lane? It is a solid white line which in most jurisdiction means you cannot move from the lane of travel until the marking becomes broken.
Bottom line - who controls the vehicle which kills a pedestrian or runner? The driver of the vehicle. Is this bike lane, other than being outside of the specifications noted earlier, dangerous? Obviously someone feels it is. I'm sure a challenge to dismiss on SJ would had been denied since there was a question of fact in this case, but that does not mean that settlement was proper.
Proximate cause of a faulty design of the bike lane is not as good as the vehicle. The vehicle striking the runner is the primary cause of the injury and the design of the bike lane is not an intervening cause. However, the earlier posting that the design could be a proximate cause is noted, I just disagree with it.
As I said earlier, deep pockets is the reason for this settlement more than a faulty design to the bike lane. A driver maintaining proper lookout would be in a position to avoid the collision.
I would pose this question - if there was in fact no bike lane and no sidewalk and the runner was forced to run in the street since there was nowhere else to run, would the city still be liable? Does the city have a duty to provide a safe place for pedestrians to walk? What about municipalities which in lieu of a sidewalk instead put a walking/bike lane next to traffic? In the absence of some safety barrier is the city liable?
My take on this is that is is California and leave it at that. This is not some further erosion of the principal of tort law in the US which will give rise to a number of new and what most would call baseless claims for damages.