Same case, 180 SW 401 (1915). Judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. The Kansas City Court of Appeals reversed and remanded again, for erroneous instructions to the jury.
Disclaimer
|
|
|
|
|
| Bethel v. City of St. Joseph, 171 SW 42 (1914). A 16 year old bicyclist and courier, carrying parcels, ran into a depression in the road, three feet across, 4 to 6 inches deep. It was after dusk, but not yet dark; the plaintiff could see to go but he could not see the hole and had no prior knowledge of it. The defendant appealed the plaintiff's judgment, which was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. A municipality is not liable for special provisions required only for the safety and convenience of those using bicycles. From the opinion, Kansas City Court of Appeals: "And while it might seem that since a city must use ordinary care to keep its streets reasonably safe for ordinary travel, and since a bicycle has become a well-recognized and usual mode of travel, this would add to the burden of the city the duty of keeping the street free from things dangerous to bicycles alone, yet this does not follow by any means. The standard of care required is no higher. For while defects which would be harmless to other modes of travel are often exceedingly dangerous to a bicycle, yet, on the other hand, the bicycle occupies a much less space than other vehicles and can be turned in any direction much more easily. So that the apparent necessity for an increase of care caused by the increased danger to bicycles from defects otherwise harmless is fully balanced by the known ability of the bicycle to avoid them. The city ought not to be required to provide a roadway which would be safe for a vehicle, the construction of which renders it peculiarly susceptible to injury when a comparison of it with other vehicles shows that, owing to its compactness and mobility, it can much more easily avoid a dangerous place than can other vehicles." Same case, 180 SW 401 (1915). Judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed. The Kansas City Court of Appeals reversed and remanded again, for erroneous instructions to the jury. |
||||
| Home Disclaimer |
||||