Roberts v. State of Louisiana

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1981. 396 So.2d 566.

Facts: While walking down the hall, plaintiff falls after being bumped into by Burson (defendant), a blind operator of the concession stand in a post office building. Defendant was not using his cane while walking, even though it was in his concession stand. He explained that he relies on his facial sense which he believes is adequate when traveling short distances. Plaintiff sues advancing two theories of liability: respondeat superior and negligent failure by State to properly oversee safe operation of concession stand. Review of testimony at trial from Marzloff, director of Division of Blind Services, says that a cane can be a hazard in a relatively busy area, and 9 out of 10 blind people won’t use a cane when they are walking in a familiar area –they use other techniques to walk. Competing testimony from Jacobson, instructor in peripathology (science of movement by visually impaired people), says that cane is required in areas outside concession stand, however Jacobson did not study or examine Burson’s mobility skills and he was unfamiliar with the State’s vending program.

Procedural History: Trial court dismissed plaintiff’s suit; plaintiff appeals.

Issue: Was the defendant acting as a reasonable, prudent blind person would act?

Holding: Yes, the defendant was acting as a reasonable, prudent blind person would act.

Rule: A person with a physical impairment is held to the reasonable standard of care of a person with the same disability.

Reasoning: In determining whether the state is to be held liable, they have to begin with an analysis of whether or not Burson, the blind man, is negligent. A blind man must take the precautions that an ordinary reasonable man would take if he were blind. The court found that Burson did not act unreasonably – he relied on his facial sense and his explanation was corroborated by others. His reports indicate he has good mobility skills and he has been working in the same surrounding for 3.5 yrs, so he is very familiar with it. There is also no evidence to show that Burson acted unreasonably (walking too fast, not paying attention, etc.)

Judgment: Trial Court decision affirmed; Court of Appeal found that Burson did not act unreasonably so there is no need to discuss liability of the State.

Additional Notes:
- Respondeat superior: master-servant rule, where an employer is responsible for the actions of his employees.
- This case showed that the rule of law for negligence makes exceptions for physical impairments.