Smith v. Sneller

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942 · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligenceBlind Pedestrianscontributory negligenceblind plaintiffreasonable prudencecity sidewalk

Facts

Plaintiff, whose vision was so impaired that he was practically blind, was walking north on a Philadelphia sidewalk while canvassing door to door as a salesman. Defendant's sewer work had created an open trench extending across the sidewalk, with excavated earth piled along both sides and a barricade only on the far side. Plaintiff did not see the pile of earth or the trench, stepped onto the loose dirt, lost his balance, and fell into the trench. He was walking alone and did not use a cane, seeing-eye dog, or companion.

Issue

Was a practically blind plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law when he walked unattended on a city sidewalk without using a cane, dog, or companion and fell into an open trench he could not see?

Rule

A person with impaired sight is held to the ordinary standard of reasonable care, but the care required is proportioned to the degree of visual impairment. Although it is not negligence per se for a blind person to travel unattended on a city sidewalk, such a person must take precautions that a reasonably prudent blind person would take, including use of common compensatory devices such as a cane, a seeing-eye dog, or a companion, because city sidewalks commonly contain obstructions and defects.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Pittsburgh, Nora Feldman has vision so poor that she can detect daylight and large shadows but cannot distinguish objects a few feet ahead. She walks alone along a downtown sidewalk without a cane, guide dog, or companion and falls into an unguarded utility cut that she did not see until her foot slid onto loose gravel at the edge.

If Nora sues the contractor for negligence, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. A blind person is not negligent per se for traveling a city sidewalk unattended, but if the person's vision is so impaired that hazards immediately ahead cannot be seen, due care requires precautions a reasonably prudent blind person would take, including common compensatory devices. Because Nora used none, her conduct falls below the required standard and may constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law.