Opinion ID: 2196733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: bicycle as a vehicle

Text: The trial court ruled that SDCL 32-26-3 did not apply because a bicycle is not a vehicle under SDCL 32-14-1(32). However, a bicycle is a vehicle. The present statutory definition of a vehicle originated in section 1(a) of chapter 251 of the 1929 Session Laws and continued as SDC 44.0301(1) and then SDCL 32-14-1(1) and provided that a vehicle included every device by which a person or property might be transported on a public highway and specifically provided that a bicycle ... shall be deemed a vehicle. Therefore, a bicycle was a vehicle at the time of this collision. Finch v. Christensen [17] , 84 S.D. 420, 424, 172 N.W.2d 571, 573 (1969). In 1988, two years subsequent to the collision in this case, the legislature amended the definitions in SDCL 32-14-1 relating to drivers licenses. [18] The amendment also included clean up language in subdivision 1, which was later codified as subdivision 32, of SDCL 32-14-1, which currently provides the following: (32) Vehicle, every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; including bicycles or ridden animals. Apparently, the trial court misread subdivision 32 to include bicycles in the exception rather than the definition. While this definition is not a paragon of clarity, bicycles are still clearly vehicles. However, a trial court may still be upheld if it reached the right result for the wrong reason. Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514, 519 (S.D.1990). The trial court correctly refused the requested instruction based on SDCL 32-26-3 because the requested instruction was not justified by the facts in this case. In Zakrzewski v. Hyronimus, 81 S.D. 428, 434, 136 N.W.2d 572, 575 (1965), this court held that the trial court was correct to give instructions to the jury on both (the predecessors [19] of) SDCL 32-26-1 and 32-26-3. However, SDCL 32-26-1 and 32-26-3 appear to be inconsistent. SDCL 32-26-1 requires drivers to drive on the right half of the road (unless it is impractical). SDCL 32-26-3 requires drivers meeting from opposite directions to pass each other to the right and to give at least one half of the main traveled portion of the road to the oncoming vehicle. Both halves of the main traveled portion of a road may be on the same side of the road. Historically, this dichotomy made some sense. Early roads were often trails within the right of way that meandered along the right of way according to need or whim. In Schnabel v. Kafer, 39 S.D. 70, 71-72, 162 N.W. 935, 935-36 (1917), the road was a 66 foot wide, unworked, fenced right of way. The traveled portion was a single track worn by wagons. The track was ten feet from the fence at the point of impact. Kafer ran into Schnabel's bicycle in the track. Schnabel was on the right side of the track but on the left half of the right of way. Kafer claimed he was entitled to half of the right of way. Judge Polley said the law was clear that there was a difference between half of the right of way and half of the traveled portion and Kafer should have given Schnabel half of the track or the traveled portion. Schnabel, supra, 39 S.D. at 73-74, 162 N.W. at 936. Tomar Road is not a wagon trail within an unimproved right of way. The habits of the public in cutting a curve short cannot redefine the rights and obligations of the drivers using the highways. In Zakrzewski, supra, 81 S.D. at 434, 136 N.W.2d at 575, the court said We think that the `main traveled portion of the roadway', referred to in the statute, was under the circumstances of this case at the time of the accident the width of the street between the curb lines..... Under the undisputed facts the area of the collision ... was not impassable because of drifted snow or other unusual conditions and it was not `impracticable' to travel on the right half of the street. The main traveled portion of Tomar Road was the street between the curb lines, not the portion actually traveled by the public in cutting the curve short. There was no impediment to prevent Grevlos from riding his bicycle to the right side of the geometric center of Tomar Road and he should have done so. The trial court should instruct the jury on issues supported by competent evidence in the record. Kallis v. Beers, supra, 375 N.W.2d at 644 (S.D.1985). The court is not required to instruct on issues that do not find support in the record. Stormo v. Strong, supra, 469 N.W.2d at 824 (S.D.1991). There were no facts in evidence that any portion of Tomar Road was impassable. Therefore, there was no basis in the evidence for the court to give an instruction based on SDCL 32-26-3. The main travelled portion of Tomar Road under the circumstances of this case at the time of the collision was the width between the curb lines. Giving Grevlos' requested instruction would have allowed the jury to speculate that the center of the road was something other than the geometric center which would be inappropriate in this case. Therefore, the trial court properly refused Grevlos' requested instructions based on SDCL 32-26-3.