Corp., 491 So.2d 633, 636-37 (La.1986)). Furthermore, Ms. Munoz testified that she was making a legal right-hand turn from the shoulder of the road. See Winfield v. Dih, 2001-1357, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/24/02), 816 So.2d 942, 947. The trial court thus erred in shifting the duty to yield from Mr. Mayfield to Ms. Munoz, as a motorist is required by law to make a right turn from the area closest to the curb. See Winfield, 2001-1357, p. 6, 816 So.2d at 947; New Orleans Municipal Code Sec. 154-436(1). Notably, this Court recently recognized that “it is only in the exceptional case where the right of way motorist could have avoided the accident by the exercise of the very slightest degree of care that he will be considered guilty of negligence.” Edwards, 2008-0177, p. 8, 994 So.2d at 655 (<HOLDING>). I cannot agree that the trial court’s factual
holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license holding that officer may order driver out of vehicle once lawfully detained for traffic violation holding that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for obstructing traffic because there was no evidence of intent to impede or hinder traffic where the vehicle was only briefly stopped in the roadway and the officer approaching the vehicle from behind did not have to stop or drive around the defendants vehicle holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that driver who crossed the favored street was 80 at fault for failing to see the approaching vehicle in oncoming traffic