The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-07-26
A Common Sense Ruling.

a case was recently adjudicated in
Steuben county, New York. which is of
general interest in view of it's bearing
upon the legal status of wheelmen. The
plaintiff, Israel w. Baldwin, carried an
accident policy in the Fraternal Acct
dent association. In 1894 he was so
badly injured by falling off his bicycle
that for one year subsequent he was
incapacitated from work. He sued to
recover 500 a week for one year. The
accident company contested the claim
cn two grounds: one, that under the
policy the plaintiff was pledged to sub
NIT the question of damages to arbitra-
tion in case of a disagreement with
the company; and the other, that the
policy provided that if the plaintiff
should be injured while engaged tenn
porarily or otherwise in any occupation
or exposure, classified as more hazard
Gus than that specified in the certif-
cate, the indemnity should be at the
rate only of the more hazardous occu-
patton. Bicycle riding was thus classi-
fed, the recovery rate being only $40
ing to allow.
The trial judge, Justice Davy, decid-
ed both points for the plaintiff. AS to
the first he held that no private agree
ment looking to arbitration could eX-
tinguish the plaintiffs right of appeal
to the courts. With reference to the
second he dismissed as unsound the
theory that bicycling, as practiced in
moderation by the average citizen, is
an extra hazardous occupation. Refer
ring to the specific clause excepting
bicycle riders from the ordinary bene-
fits of the insurance the judge said it
seemed to him that person who only
rides a bicycle occasionally for convent
ence and pleasure is not a bicyclist
within the meaning of said policy. The
mere fact that man rides q
bicycle occasionally for pleasure does
not make him by occupation d profess
sional bicyclist. The clause in the poll
| ley evidently has reference to those
who are professional bicyclists and
make their living by racing on the
| wheel"
This decision so favorably impressed
| the Rochester Herald, in whose coll
| umns we now find it reported, that II
said in comment: IF the plaintiff had
| been injured in a railroad accident or
while ont driving, the company could
| not plead that he was entitled only to
| the lower indemnity because he had
| been engaged in an extra hazardous
occupation; and bicycling is surely not
| more pcrilous than driving or railroad
| travel. Bicycle-riding is no longer ex-
| c)usively a pastime. 1t is perhaps safe
J TO affirm that the majority of wheel
| men ride for the sake of convenience
and utility. If an element of danger
attends the practice, it proceeds, not
| from the simple use of the vehicle, but
from the congestion of the streets
caused by the growing employment
ond popularity of this method of loco
motion. We are not familiar with the
| general policy of accident insurance
companies in their dealings with per-
sens who ride the wheel; but it strikes
us that it is both unwise and, in the
| iNH5 iuii' uiipA SA'oblS iOi any VI lilelll
to classify wheelmen as exceptional
risks"
AS in the case of the railway COM
| panies, once obstreperous but now
courteous and obliging in their treat
ment of wheelmen, the accident COM
panies will have sooner or later to come
down or go out of business. The
wheelman is lord Of the situation.