100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 32 - 34 out of 63 pages.
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 LouisianaCourt of Appeals of Louisiana396 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 bumpedby 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 asone of the circumstances under which he acts.