Lexplug logoLexplug

Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen

The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One
54 Wash. 2d 174, 338 P.2d 743 (1959)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A city's duty to maintain its public ways in a reasonably safe condition is owed to all foreseeable users, including those with physical disabilities. This duty is correlative to the disabled person's duty to exercise the care that a reasonable person with the same disability would exercise under the circumstances.


Facts:

  • The city of Aberdeen dug a ditch in the parking strip adjacent to a sidewalk to place electric wires underground.
  • The city initially erected barricades around the excavation to protect pedestrians.
  • A city employee temporarily removed the barricades to facilitate his work in the excavation.
  • The employee negligently failed to replace the barricades after moving to work elsewhere, leaving the ditch unprotected.
  • The respondent husband, who is blind, was cautiously walking down the street, using his cane to feel his way.
  • Because the protective barriers had been removed, the respondent was unaware of the excavation and had a mishap.
  • If the barricades had been in place, the respondent's cane would have detected them, and he would have been protected.

Procedural Posture:

  • The respondent husband sued the city of Aberdeen in a trial court for personal injury.
  • A jury returned a verdict in favor of the respondent.
  • The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the respondent.
  • The city of Aberdeen, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a city's duty to maintain its public ways in a reasonably safe condition require it to account for use by individuals with physical disabilities, such as blindness?


Opinions:

Majority - Foster, J.

Yes, a city's duty to maintain its public ways in a reasonably safe condition requires it to account for use by individuals with physical disabilities. The city is charged with the knowledge that its streets will be used by physically infirm individuals as well as those in perfect health. The court held that the obligations are correlative: a person with a physical disability must use the care that a reasonable person with the same disability would exercise, and the city must afford a degree of protection or warning that would bring the danger to the notice of such a person. The court rejected the city's requested instruction that it owed no 'higher degree of care' to a blind person, finding instead that the standard of reasonable care is flexible enough to account for the foreseeable presence of disabled individuals on public ways.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that the standard of reasonable care for municipalities is not fixed to the 'ordinary' or able-bodied pedestrian but is flexible enough to encompass foreseeable users with physical disabilities. It solidifies the 'correlative duties' doctrine, where the heightened caution expected of a disabled person is matched by a heightened responsibility on the part of the city to provide warnings effective for that person. This precedent significantly impacts municipal liability by preventing cities from arguing their duty is fulfilled by warnings that are only adequate for non-disabled individuals, thereby requiring more inclusive safety planning for public works.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen (1959) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen