Poyner v. Loftus
694 A.2d 69 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person with a physical disability must exercise the degree of care that an ordinarily prudent person with the same disability would exercise under similar circumstances, which may include using compensatory aids to mitigate the known risks of their condition.
Facts:
- William J. Poyner is legally blind with a visual range of approximately six to eight feet and does not use a cane or a seeing eye dog.
- On August 24, 1993, Poyner was walking on an elevated platform on his way to Parklane Cleaners, a route he had taken three or four times previously.
- Poyner was aware of the platform's general layout and believed bushes along the edge served as a protective barrier.
- Unbeknownst to Poyner, one of the bushes at the end of the platform was missing, creating an unprotected edge.
- While walking, Poyner heard someone call his name from the street.
- Poyner turned his head to the right in response to the call but continued to walk forward without looking in his direction of travel.
- He stepped into the gap where the bush was missing and fell off the platform, sustaining personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- William J. Poyner filed a personal injury lawsuit against the building owners, the property manager, and the proprietor of Parklane Cleaners in the trial court.
- After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Poyner was contributorily negligent.
- The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding Poyner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- William J. Poyner, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to this court.
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 legally blind individual who fails to use a compensatory device, such as a cane or guide dog, and who becomes distracted at the moment of injury, constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Schwelb, Associate Judge
Yes. A legally blind individual who fails to use a common compensatory device and is actively inattentive at the time of an accident is contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The standard of care for a person with a physical disability is that of a reasonably prudent person with the same disability under the same circumstances. The court reasoned that exercising this care often requires taking greater precautions than a person without the disability, such as using aids like a cane or guide dog. Citing Smith v. Sneller, the court noted that a blind person's failure to use such a device can constitute contributory negligence. This case is even stronger because Poyner, in addition to not using an aid, admitted he was not looking where he was going at the critical moment, despite having some vision. This combination of facts established contributory negligence so clearly that no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the standard of care for plaintiffs with physical disabilities, confirming that the standard is tailored to the specific disability but still requires objectively reasonable precautions. The ruling emphasizes that individuals with disabilities have a responsibility to use common compensatory aids to ensure their own safety. By affirming summary judgment, the court signals that a disabled plaintiff's failure to use such aids, especially when combined with another act of carelessness like inattention, can be a dispositive issue decided by a judge, making it more difficult for such cases to reach a jury. This precedent places a significant burden on plaintiffs with disabilities to demonstrate they took all reasonable affirmative steps to mitigate the dangers their condition presents.
