Disclaimer
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee v. City of Port Huron, 87 NW 637 (1901). The plaintiff bicyclist riding on a sidewalk and going around a pedestrian was injured by a defective sidewalk plank. The loose plank board tipped up as the bicyclist went over it. She fell and was hurt. The city had an ordinance licensing bicyclists to ride on the sidewalks of certain streets under certain conditions. The bicyclists paid a fee to procure the license. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff and cited this licensing procedure and the following from a previous case: "'While a bicycle is a vehicle, it is not one to be classed, in all its methods of use, with other vehicles drawn by animal or mechanical power.'" The court continued: "One riding a bicycle occupies no more space than he would in walking. ... What would be a nuisance upon a sidewalk continually crowded with foot passengers would not be a nuisance upon a sidewalk where there was little travel. ... Where the streets are unpaved, they are oftentimes impassable for the bicycle, and it is entirely proper for municipalities to permit and regulate the use of the sidewalks in such cases. ... It should be borne in mind that in this decision we carry the doctrine no further than was done in Leslie v. City of Grand Rapids ... where we held that the measure of duty imposed by the statute upon municipalities included ordinary vehicles, and did not require that the streets should be so constructed and repaired as to include safety to bicycles. It was held sufficient in that case if the highway was in reasonable repair for the passing of ordinary vehicles, though it might be dangerous for bicycles. So, in this case, we must assume that the sidewalk was not in reasonable repair for the ordinary uses for which sidewalks were constructed. There might be a defect in a sidewalk similar to the defect in a street in that case, which would involve no danger to a traveler on foot, but might involve danger to one riding a bicycle over it. If a walk were constructed of planks running lengthwise, the planks might be so far apart as to permit the tire of a wheel to be caught in the openings, and cause the rider to fall, while it would be entirely safe for pedestrians. Or there might be a depression in a cement walk, entirely safe for pedestrians, but unsafe for bicyclists. Such conditions would be controlled by Leslie v. City of Grand Rapids." | ||||
| Home Disclaimer |
||||