Davis v. Feinstein - 370 Pa. 449, 88 A.2d 695 (1952)

Rule:

A blind person is not bound to discover everything which a person of normal vision would. He is bound to use due care under the circumstances. Due care for a blind man includes a reasonable effort to compensate for his unfortunate affliction by the use of artificial aids for discerning obstacles in his path. When an effort in this direction is made, it will ordinarily be a jury question whether or not such effort was a reasonable one. The general rule applies that contributory negligence may be declared as a matter of law only when it is so clearly revealed that fair and reasonable persons cannot disagree as to its existence.

Facts:

The pedestrian was blind and fell into an open cellar while walking past the shopkeeper's business. The guardrail that normally surrounded the opening was missing. The shopkeeper contended that the pedestrian was contributorily negligent for failing to discover the open and obvious cellar with his white cane.

Issue:

Was the blind person guilty of contributory negligence for failing to discover the open and obvious cellar with his white cane?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment for the pedestrian. The court held that it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the pedestrian exercised due care in the way he used his cane because the blind pedestrian was not bound to discover everything a person of normal vision would.