who was standing far away when the package was dropped. If the court had
decided that
Defendant was negligent in respect to the Plaintiff, then the majority concludes that
a
defendant would be liable for any and all consequences of its negligence, “however novel or
extraordinary.”
D:
Reversed.
Dissent: The dissent takes the view that, as a matter of law, it could not be determined that
the Defendant’s actions were not the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries. Justice
Andrews concluded that the judgment should have been affirmed. He says that where there
is the unreasonable act, and some right that may be affected there is negligence whether
damage does or does not exist.
He says “[e]very one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that
may unreasonably threaten the safety of others,” and further notes, “[w]hen injuries do
result from our unlawful act we are liable for the consequences. It does not matter that they
are unusual, unexpected, unforeseen and unforeseeable. But there is one limitation. The
damages must be so connected with the negligence that the latter may be said to be the
proximate cause of the former.”
C:
Roberts v. State of Louisiana
Court of Appeals of Louisiana
396 So. 2d 566 (1981)
PH:
Plaintiff Roberts sued defendant State of Louisiana for negligent failure by the State
to properly
supervise and oversee the sage operation of the concession stand, which is
operated by a blind
man, Mike Burson.
The trial court ordered plaintiff’s suit dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.
LF:
On September 1, 1977, operator Mike Burson left his concession sand to go the
men’s restroom. Plaintiff, who is 75 years old and stood at 5’6 and 100 pounds, was bumped
by Mr. Burson, who is 25 years old, stood 6 feet tall and weighed 165 pounds.
Burson is totally blind and has operated the concession for 3 years. The concession
stand is one
of the 23 vending stands that is operated by blind persons under a program
funded by the
federal government and implemented by the State through the blind
Services Division of the
Department of Health and Human Resources.
Plaintiff contends that Mr. Burson walking about the area from the concession stand
to the mend’s bathroom is a negligent manner because he did not use his cane even
though he had it
with him in his concession stand.
Different courts have imposed differing standard of care to which handicapped
persons are
expected to perform.
I:
R:
A man who is blind is entitled to live in the world and to have allowance made by
others for his disability, and he cannot be required to do the impossible by conforming to
physical standards
which he cannot meet. The conduct of the handicapped individual
must be reasonable in the
light of his knowledge of his infirmity, which is treated merely as
one of the circumstances under
which he acts.
