Disclaimer
|
|
|
|
|
| Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind 450, 20 NE 132 (1889). A pedestrian standing on a sidewalk was run over by a bicyclist. This was a 14 foot wide sidewalk with nothing obstructing the bicyclist's view, and the pedestrian was standing near the edge of the sidewalk. At least 10 feet of the sidewalk was entirely unobstructed so that the bicyclist should have been able to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The bicyclist was held liable for the pedestrian's injuries as a result of (civil) assault and battery, though the injury was unintended. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. The Supreme Court of Indiana: "If, therefore, it be conceded that the appellant had a right to ride his bicycle upon a way set apart for the use of footmen, he is nevertheless liable in this action. Whether the appellant had a right to ride his bicycle upon the footway is a question which deserves consideration. This question would be important in the absence of any statute, and it is the more important because of our statute, which reads thus: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to ride or drive upon the brick, stone, plank, or gravel sidewalk of any town or village, or upon any similar sidewalk for the use of foot-passengers in this state, unless in the necessary act of crossing the same.' ... Sidewalks are intended for the use of pedestrians, and not for use by persons in vehicles. The manifest purpose of the statute is to preserve the sidewalks from use by persons in or on vehicles, and, if the bicycle can be deemed a vehicle, then the appellant had no right to ride or drive his bicycle longitudinally along the sidewalk. If sidewalks are exclusively for the use of footmen, then bicycles, if they are vehicles, must not be ridden along them, since to affirm that sidewalks are exclusively for the use of footmen necessarily implies that they cannot be traveled by vehicles. It would be a palpable contradiction to affirm that footmen have the exclusive right to use the sidewalks, and yet concede that persons not traveling as pedestrians may also rightfully use them. A person on a bicycle is certainly not a footman, and, if not, then he makes an unlawful use of the sidewalk when he rides or drives longitudinally along it. It would seem to follow that, even if a bicycle cannot be considered to be a vehicle, still it is unlawful to ride or drive it along a way set apart for the exclusive use of pedestrians. We think, however, that a bicycle must be regarded as a vehicle within the meaning of the law. ... Under these definitions it must be regarded as a sort of vehicle, and so the courts have regarded it. In one case ... it was held that a bicycle was entitled to the 'rights of the road,' as other vehicles; and a driver of a wagon who refused to turn to the right, and thus caused a collision with a bicycle, was held liable. In Taylor v. Goodwin ... it was held that one riding a bicycle may be convicted of furiously driving a carriage upon a highway under a statute forbidding such an act. In commenting on this case, Mr. Irving Brown says: 'This of course would exclude bicycles from sidewalks, which is quite necessary. ..." | ||||
| Home Disclaimer |
||||