Poyner v. Loftus

694 A.2d 69 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P suffers from glaucoma and retrobulbar neuritis. P is able to see six to eight feet in front of himself. P does not use a cane or a seeing eye dog in pursuing his daily activities. P left his home to the dry cleaners. P had walked by the area on three or four previous occasions and was aware of the general layout. There were bushes along the edge of the platform, and that these bushes provided a natural barrier which would prevent him from falling if he attempted to walk too far. Unbeknownst to P, one of the bushes was missing, and there was thus nothing to restrain him from falling off the platform. Someone called his name. P turned his head to the right but continued to walk forward to the location at the end of the platform where he thought that a bush would be. There was no bush. P fell, suffering personal injuries. P sued the owners of the building, the property manager in charge of its maintenance, and the proprietor of Parklane Cleaners. Ds moved for summary judgment in that P had been contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The trial judge granted the motion in that P clearly violate an objective reasonableness standard in proceeding forward while looking the other way given his physical limitations. P appealed.