Smith v. Sneller
26 A.2d 452 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person with a physical disability is held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person with that same disability, which requires taking precautions and using common compensatory devices (e.g., a cane for a blind person) to mitigate risks associated with their impairment. Failure to do so can constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a salesman with vision so impaired he was considered blind for practical purposes, was canvassing house to house.
- Defendant Sneller, a plumber, had contracted for a trench to be dug across a public sidewalk for a sewer connection.
- The trench was three to four feet wide and seven to eight feet deep, with excavated earth piled about two feet high along its sides.
- There was a barricade on the far side of the trench from the plaintiff's approach, but not on the side he was approaching.
- On a bright summer day, the plaintiff walked on the sidewalk without the aid of a cane, guide dog, or companion.
- Plaintiff did not see the pile of earth, stepped on it, and the loose material gave way, causing him to lose his balance and fall into the trench.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant Sneller in a state trial court for trespass (a tort action).
- A jury at the trial court level returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- Defendant Sneller, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court, finding the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, and entered judgment n.o.v. for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, was then granted a special appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the state's highest 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 person with severely impaired vision fail to exercise the legally required standard of care, and is therefore contributorily negligent as a matter of law, when they walk on a public sidewalk without a compensatory device and fall into an unguarded construction trench?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Drew
Yes. A person with severely impaired vision who walks on a public sidewalk without a compensatory device like a cane fails to meet the required standard of care and 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 similar circumstances. This standard does not impose a higher duty, but rather requires the individual to use other senses more vigilantly and employ common compensatory measures to meet the ordinary standard of care. While it is not negligent in itself for a blind person to walk unattended, they must be mindful of their disadvantage and the common knowledge that city sidewalks may contain defects. In this case, the plaintiff's duty of due care required him to use a common device for the blind, such as a cane, guide dog, or companion, which would likely have prevented the accident. By failing to do so, he did not exercise the degree of care required of him.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'reasonable person' standard in tort law by applying it to individuals with physical disabilities. It establishes that the standard is not what a non-disabled person would do, but what a reasonably prudent person with that specific disability would do. The court's holding imposes an affirmative duty on individuals with disabilities to use common compensatory devices to mitigate risks. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs with disabilities to recover for injuries if they were not using such aids, as their failure to do so can be judged as contributory negligence as a matter of law, potentially barring recovery entirely.
