Roberts v. State of Louisiana
396 So.2d 566 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of care for a person with a physical disability is that of a reasonable person with the same disability under like circumstances.
Facts:
- Mike Burson, a blind man, operated a concession stand in a U.S. Post Office building in Alexandria, Louisiana.
- Burson had received formal mobility training for the blind and had worked at this location for over three years, making him very familiar with the building's layout.
- On September 1, 1977, Burson left his stand to walk to the men's restroom located within the same building.
- He chose not to use his cane for this short trip, relying instead on his 'facial sense,' a technique he felt was adequate for the familiar setting.
- While walking down the hall, Burson bumped into William C. Roberts, a 75-year-old man.
- The collision caused Roberts to fall to the floor and injure his hip.
Procedural Posture:
- William C. Roberts sued the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration, in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The United States of America was originally a defendant but was dismissed from the suit.
- The trial court held for the defendant State of Louisiana and ordered Roberts' suit dismissed.
- Roberts, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was a blind individual contributorily negligent for choosing not to use a cane while walking in a familiar indoor environment where he had worked for over three years?
Opinions:
Majority - Laborde, J.
No. A blind individual is not negligent for choosing not to use a cane in a familiar environment if their conduct is reasonable in light of their infirmity and experience. The court held that the standard of care is what a reasonably prudent person with the same disability would do under the circumstances. The court found Burson's actions were reasonable because he had worked in the building for over three years, had received specialized mobility training, and made a reasoned decision to rely on his 'facial sense' for a short, familiar trip. Testimony from other blind individuals and program supervisors established that it is common and often practical for blind people to forgo using a cane in familiar settings. The court found no evidence that Burson was otherwise negligent, such as by walking too fast or not paying attention.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the negligence standard for individuals with physical disabilities, rejecting a rigid rule that would require a blind person to always use a cane regardless of circumstance. The court adopts a more flexible, subjective standard that evaluates the individual's conduct based on what a reasonable person with that specific disability, training, and experience would have done. This approach moves away from viewing a disability as inherently negligent and instead treats it as one of the circumstances to be considered in a traditional negligence analysis. This precedent requires a fact-intensive inquiry into the reasonableness of the disabled person's choices, rather than applying a uniform, objective standard.
Unlock the full brief for Roberts v. State of Louisiana