"... It is clear that the legislature has complete power to provide proper and reasonable police regulations, and to amend or alter them from time to time, in respect to the highways of the state, and persons going upon and over them with their vehicles, horses, and other motive power, with a view to protect the roads, and the safety and comfort of passengers going over them. The power is constantly exercised, and it is prudent and necessary to do so, as common experience everywhere proves. Many persons are more or less selfish, and seek their own advantage, and consult their own convenience, fancy, or pleasure, without proper regard for the like rights of others, sometimes at their expense, and hence legal restraints and regulations are necessary.
"As we have seen, no man has the right, in the use of his own property of whatever nature, to so use it as to injure another in the just use of his, or the exercise of his personal rights. Hence there is no reason why [an] owner of a particular kind of vehicle, which, because of its peculiar form or appearance, or from the unusual manner of its use, frightens horses, or otherwise imperils passengers over the road, or their property properly there, shall not be allowed to use such vehicle on the road. He has no right to use it to the prejudice or injury of others who are lawfully exercising their rights in the use of it.
"If it be said, when shall one person be restrained in doing as he will with his own property, --from going, for example, on the highway with his own vehicle, of whatever kind? [T]he answer is, whenever, in the ordinary lawful course of things in that connection, he would, by the use of his property,--his vehicle, in the case suggested,--interfere materially in any respect with another in the ordinary, lawful use of his property or rights. He might be restrained in one place, and not in another. He might go upon one highway, and not upon another. He might go upon one highway at one time, and not at another. He might be restrained under one class of circumstances, and not under another; in all such cases the restraint depending on different attendant circumstances, as, perhaps, numbers and kinds of persons passing over the highway, the kinds of places, the character and purposes of the highway, its use at one time as different from the same at another, and the like considerations. The person thus restrained might be affected adversely in the use of his property, disappointed in his cherished wishes, in the indulgence of his fancy, in taking pleasure or recreation, perhaps, as to his substantial interests, but these must all give way to the extent necessary to allow others to have and enjoy their lawful rights, however these may arise; and, generally, it is for the legislative authority, directly or indirectly, to prescribe such regulations and restraints.
"In the case before us the statute ... forbids every person 'to use upon the road of said company a bicycle, or tricycle, or other non-horse vehicle, without the express permission of the superintendant of said road,' etc. The purpose of this statutory provision is not to destroy the defendant's property, his bicycle, or to deprive him of the use of it in a way not injurious to others; but to prevent him from using it on a particular road ... at a particular time or season, when it would, by reason of its peculiar shape and the unusual manner of using it as a means of locomotion, prove injurious to others, particularly women and children constantly passing and repassing in great numbers over the particular road mentioned, in carriages and other ordinary vehicles drawn by horses.
[Please click here to continue reading.]
Disclaimer