Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit · 1981 · Torts
396 So. 2d 566 (La. Ct. App. 1981)
Updated
TortsNegligenceStandard of care for blind personsVicarious liabilityblind personreasonable prudent personhandicapped actorstandard of care
Facts
Plaintiff, a 75-year-old man, was injured when Mike Burson, the blind operator of a concession stand in the Alexandria post office building, bumped into him while walking from the stand to the men's bathroom. Burson was totally blind, had operated the stand in that building for about three and a half years, and had received mobility training. At the time of the incident, Burson was not using a cane and instead relied on his facial sense for short trips inside the familiar building. Plaintiff sued only the State, alleging respondeat superior and negligent supervision, while asserting that Burson himself had been negligent.
Issue
Was Burson negligent in walking through the post office building without a cane, such that plaintiff could recover from the State on the theories asserted? More specifically, did Burson fail to act as a reasonably prudent blind person would under these circumstances?
Rule
A handicapped person's conduct is judged in light of the disability as one of the circumstances under which he acts. A blind person is not held to impossible physical standards, but must take the precautions, whether more or less, that an ordinarily reasonable person would take if blind under the same circumstances.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Tulsa, Nina Flores, who is totally blind, has worked for five years at a county office building snack kiosk operated through a state rehabilitation program. One afternoon she walked from the kiosk to a nearby employee restroom without her cane, using techniques she had been taught in mobility training for short trips in that familiar hallway, and lightly collided with Owen Price, who stumbled and fractured his wrist.
If Owen sues the state program alleging Nina was negligent, which is the strongest argument for the defense under the governing rule?
Explanation. The majority applied a disability-adjusted reasonableness standard: a blind person must take the precautions an ordinarily reasonable person would take if blind under the same circumstances. It rejected any fixed rule requiring cane use and emphasized familiarity with the setting, mobility training, and the absence of evidence of haste or inattention.