Davis v. Feinstein
370 Pa. 449, 88 A.2d 695, 1952 Pa. LEXIS 361 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person with a physical disability, such as blindness, is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person with that same disability and is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law if they make a reasonable effort to compensate for their impairment, such as by using a cane; whether their effort was reasonable is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- The plaintiff is a blind man who customarily used a white cane while walking.
- Defendants maintained a furniture store with a two-section cellar door on the sidewalk that was flush with the pavement when closed.
- On the day of the incident, one section of the cellar door was closed, while the other was standing erect.
- A five-foot iron bar, which normally connected the two open sections to form a protective barrier, was not in place, leaving a dangerous opening.
- Plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk, using his cane to guide himself by touching building walls and tapping the ground two to three feet ahead of him.
- Despite using his cane, the plaintiff fell into the uncovered portion of the cellarway and was injured.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants in a trial court in an action of trespass for negligence.
- A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Defendants filed a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto (judgment notwithstanding the verdict), arguing plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, which the trial court denied.
- Defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a blind person who uses a compensatory cane but falls into an open cellarway on a public sidewalk contributorily negligent as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne
No. A blind person is not contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to discover a hazard when they have made a reasonable effort to compensate for their disability by using an artificial aid. Due care for a blind person includes using a common compensatory device, such as a cane. The court rejected the defendant's argument that because the plaintiff fell, he must have been using the cane improperly. A blind person is not bound to discover everything a person with normal vision would; they are only bound to use due care under the circumstances. When a blind person makes an effort to use a compensatory aid, the reasonableness of that effort is a question for the jury, not a matter of law to be decided by a judge, unless the evidence of negligence is so clear that no reasonable persons could disagree.
Analysis:
This decision refines the standard of care for individuals with physical disabilities, building upon the precedent of Smith v. Sneller. It establishes that the use of a compensatory aid, like a cane, is sufficient to create a jury question regarding contributory negligence, preventing summary judgment for the defendant. The ruling solidifies the principle that the reasonableness of a disabled person's actions is a factual inquiry based on the specific circumstances, rather than a legal conclusion based solely on the outcome. This protects plaintiffs with disabilities from being held to an impossibly high standard of care and reinforces the jury's role in evaluating questions of negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Feinstein