Disclaimer
|
|
|
|
|
| Taylor v. Union Traction Co., 184 Pa 465, 40 At 159 (1898). A bicyclist riding down a street collided with a cart or the horse drawing the cart. It was raining, the road was wet, and the bicyclist was riding slowly so as to maintain safe control of his vehicle. The case doesn't explicitly say so, but a careful reading of the opinion gives the impression that the bicyclist was struck from behind. It was not an intersection collision. The bicyclist riding slowly down the street first saw the driver of the cart coming very fast from 30 to 40 feet away, and the cart was occupying the rails of the passenger railway company. Both drivers proceeded as if they expected to have right of way, and the bicyclist turned off after the collision was already unavoidable. Judgment for defendant affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. From the court's opinion: "There may be said to be two grounds upon which the plaintiff bases his cause of action. The first of these is that the defendant's driver was driving at a high rate of speed. I do not think there is anything in the evidence which would justify an inference that the plaintiff's injuries were owing to any negligence of the driver upon that course. The other ground is that the plaintiff had the right of way. To sustain this point, reliance is had upon the statute which gives to a bicycle the character of a vehicle, and also to an ordinance of the city which, in ordinary cases, gives to vehicles the right of way upon the tracks of the passenger railway companies in the direction in which the cars ordinarily run. The obvious reason of this ordinance, however, is that it was intended to give to the vehicles making use of the rails of the tracks a convenient and settled right of direction and occupancy upon those rails. I do not think it has any bearing whatever upon the rights of riders of bicycles. Nobody, I presume, would dispute the proposition that in the ordinary occupancy of streets, and under ordinary circumstances, the drivers of vehicles drawn by horses and the riders of bicycles must regard the ordinary rules of the road for each other's convenience and safety. I do not, however, think that such a rule would require that, in an open unobstructed highway, a vehicle like a cart, for instance, should be driven to one side in order that the rider of a bicycle might be relieved of the necessity of deviating from a straight line. Good sense and a reasonable regard for the peculiarities of such cases ought to be required, both of the drivers of vehicles and of the riders of bicycles. This it is hardly necessary to say. The experience of almost everyone, in his own family, if not from his own personal use of the bicycle, emphasizes the importance of proper and reasonable regulations for the protection of the many thousands of people who use the modern vehicle known as the bicycle. At the same time, it is also to be borne in mind that that vehicle is much lighter and more under the control of its rider than vehicles of the other sort, which are drawn by horses. In many cases, therefore, it is the duty of the rider of the bicycle to regulate his course, and to make concessions, which possibly the driver of a vehicle of burden ordinarily would not be obliged to do. In this particular case it is quite evident that the plaintiff, under the notion that he had a right to compel the driver of the cart to leave the track in order to give him a free and unobstructed passage, remained in his onward course so long that the collision was unavoidable. In this he was at fault. He brought the consequences upon himself by his own folly. In our judgment, there was nothing in the circumstances of the case or in his duty which required the driver of the cart to leave the track to make room for the plaintiff. ..." | ||||
| Home Disclaimer |
||||