Roberts v. STATE THROUGH LA. HEALTH AND HUMAN RES. ADMIN.

396 So. 2d 566 · 1981

Facts

William C. Roberts, 75, fell and injured his hip in the U.S. Post Office Building lobby after being bumped by Mike Burson. Burson, a blind concession stand operator, was walking from his stand to the men's bathroom. At the time, Burson was not using his cane, though he had it with him. He had operated the stand in the building for three and a half years and relied on his facial sense for short, familiar trips. Roberts sued the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration, alleging respondeat superior and negligent supervision.

Procedural history

William C. Roberts sued the State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration, in a tort suit. The trial court dismissed Roberts' suit, holding there was no respondeat superior liability without an employer-employee relationship and no negligence liability without a cause in fact showing. Roberts appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Issue

The central legal question was whether Mike Burson, a blind concession stand operator, was negligent for not using a cane while walking in a familiar building. This determination was crucial for assessing the State's potential liability under theories of respondeat superior and negligent supervision.

Holding

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Mike Burson was not negligent. Consequently, the State of Louisiana was not liable for Roberts' injuries.

Rule

The legal rule applied is that a handicapped individual's conduct must be reasonable in light of their knowledge of their infirmity. A blind person must take the precautions that an ordinary reasonable person would take if they were blind, not necessarily a greater degree of care than a sighted person. The court reasoned that Burson acted as a reasonably prudent blind person, considering his familiarity with the building, mobility training, and the reasoned decision to rely on facial sense for short, familiar trips. Expert testimony also supported that not using a cane in a familiar setting is common and sometimes safer for blind individuals.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.