The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-06-09
Rights of Pedestrians.

Pedestrians have as many rights in the
streets as teamsters or cabmen, and it is
therefore surprising to see the stand the
New York papers have taken in suggesting
a remedy to secure the safety of life and
streets of the metropolis. The Sun,
in a recent article, stated that
sixty-two persons were run down
in the streets of that city within four
weeks, and that four of them were killed.
The article is headed, Beyond the Curb,
Dangeri Cross the Street IL You Can, But
You Do 1t at Your Peril" The World pro-
poses that sidewalks shall be elevated and
the streets given up TO the horses and the
trucks. The American people object to
climbing stairs, and very reasonably.
This question of the rights of pedestrians
is not only of importance to New York, but
to every other city In the United States.
A man does not necessarily have a mort
gage on a street because he happens
to drive one or more horses. The
law is explicit on the subject.
1t says in brief. "Have care" and dis
tinctly states that the remark is applicable
to all who use the highways. whether they
ride or walk. This was decided in England
as far back as 1876. Something over CEN
fury nearer our own time the learned
Chief Justice Denman of England,
in answer to a plea that the
plaintiff was walking in the road,
when there was sidewalk, said: "a man
he's right to walk in the road if he pleases
1t is way for foot passengers as well as
carriages" This view has been upheld by
the courts in all instances. In 1888 man
was run over while crossing High street,
London, and Chief Justice Coleridge held
that the cabman and his en-
ployes were liable in damages.
In 1852 woman was crossing Rathbone
place in London, when her clothes were
caught in the wheel of a cab, and she was
severely injured. 1t was shown on trial
that the cabman called to her twice to get
out of the way, and yet it was held that he
should drive across crossings SLOWLY, eau
tiously, and carefully" and for neglecting
to do SO he and his employer were held in
damages.
An exhaustive search through law reports
fails to reveal single instance where the
doctrine is set forth that drivers are the
only persons who have any rights upon the
streets. Angel. in his book on highways,
which has been accepted as an authority on
the subject, makes this statement:
Highways are public roads which every citi-
zen has a right to use The word high
ways is considered the genus of all public ways
so that common street in any city or town.
being common to all people, is a public high
way. All persons have the right to
pass and repass upon all public roads so ions
as they violate no laws for the common good or
for the protection OF individuals. : y
Children are not restricted more than adults.
The last two sentences are taken from the
decision in the case of Stinson VS.. Gardener
in Maine, and are cited by Mr. Angel to
strengthen his position. This is On
law, consequently decision in Maine is of
as much value in New York or Savannah
as decision Of one of the
courts in those cities would be.
There are state laws and city ordinances on
the subject in New York as we'll as else
where, which declare that the pedestrian
has rights in the streets. Why not give
them to hime There is no reason why one
class of citizens should surrender rights
which are guaranteed to ali, and take to
! elevated sidewalks, or Inconvenience them
selves in the slightest in this regard or in
| any other.