Poyner v. Loftus
694 A.2d 69 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
Facts
William Poyner, who is legally blind, fell from an elevated walkway and brought a personal injuries action against the building owners, property manager, and Parklane Cleaners. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding Poyner contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he was not paying attention to where he was walking.
Issue
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Mr. Poyner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, despite his visual handicap?
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Mr. Poyner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he failed to exercise reasonable care by not looking where he was going, given his visual impairment and the known presence of an elevated platform.
Rule
A blind or otherwise handicapped person, in using the public ways, must exercise for his own safety due care, or care commensurate with the known or reasonably foreseeable dangers; due care is such care as an ordinarily prudent person with the same disability would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.