Tort Law

Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen

54 Wash. 2d 174, 338 P.2d 743

Facts

• The City of Aberdeen excavated a ditch beside or across a public walkway while installing underground electrical equipment.
• Barricades were ordinarily placed around the excavation.
• A city employee temporarily removed a portion of the barricade to perform work.
• The barrier was not properly replaced or supplemented with another effective warning.
• Fletcher was blind.
• He regularly travelled with the assistance of a cane.
• A physical barricade would ordinarily allow him to detect an obstruction before reaching it.
• Because the protective barrier had been removed, Fletcher’s cane did not provide sufficient warning.
• He fell into the excavation and suffered injuries.
• Fletcher sued the city in negligence.
• The city argued that it owed only the ordinary duty to make streets reasonably safe for persons possessing normal sight.
• It contended that special precautions for blind pedestrians would impose a higher and unfair burden upon public authorities.

• Whether a public authority must anticipate that persons with disabilities will use streets and walkways.
• Whether reasonable care may require warnings detectable by blind pedestrians.
• What standard applies when assessing the conduct of a blind claimant.
• Whether Fletcher was contributorily negligent merely because he travelled independently.

• A public authority must exercise reasonable care to maintain streets and walkways in a condition reasonably safe for foreseeable users.
• Foreseeable users include persons who are:
o blind;
o physically disabled;
o elderly; or
o otherwise unable to perceive dangers in the same manner as fully able-bodied persons.
• The legal degree of care remains “reasonable care,” but the practical precautions required may vary according to the persons foreseeably exposed to the danger.
• A physically disabled person is judged according to the conduct of a reasonable person with the same disability.
• A blind claimant must take precautions reasonably appropriate to blindness, such as using a cane where suitable.
• Blindness does not remove the right to use public streets.

• The city knew that the walkway was open to the general public.
• The public included blind pedestrians.
• The original barricade performed two protective functions:
o it visually warned sighted persons; and
o it could be physically detected by the cane of a blind person.
• Removing the barrier eliminated both forms of protection.
• The city could not discharge its duty by providing warnings useful only to persons with normal sight when disabled use of the walkway was reasonably foreseeable.
• The required precaution was neither extraordinary nor burdensome.
• The employee could have replaced the barricade, provided a temporary rail or otherwise physically blocked access to the excavation.
• Fletcher exercised precautions appropriate to his condition by using a cane.
• He was not required to remain at home or travel only with another person.
• The city’s proposed rule would effectively deny blind persons equal use of public ways and place upon them the full consequences of municipal hazards.
• Reasonable care is objective but sufficiently flexible to account for physical disabilities relevant to perception and response.

• The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Fletcher.
• The city’s duty extended to foreseeable blind pedestrians.
• The city was required to provide protection reasonably capable of warning persons who used canes rather than relying solely upon visual detection.
• Fletcher’s own conduct was properly assessed according to the standard of a reasonably careful blind person.