Poyner v. Loftus
694 A.2d 69 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
Facts
William J. Poyner, who is legally blind but does not use a cane or guide dog, fell from an elevated walkway adjacent to a dry cleaner. He was aware of the general layout, but a bush he believed provided a barrier was missing. He was distracted by someone calling his name, turned his head, and continued walking forward, falling off the platform.
Issue
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment by finding the legally blind plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law for falling from an elevated walkway after being distracted and not looking where he was going?
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding that Mr. Poyner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. His own testimony established that he did not exercise reasonable care, and no impartial jury could reasonably find otherwise.
Rule
A legally blind or handicapped person must exercise due care commensurate with known or foreseeable dangers, which is such care as an ordinarily prudent person with the same disability would exercise. This standard often requires greater watchfulness and the use of compensatory devices like a cane or guide dog. Contributory negligence can be found as a matter of law in exceptional cases where the evidence is clear and unambiguous.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.