P, while engaged in a house-to-house canvass as a salesman of small articles, was injured in falling into an open trench of a sidewalk. D, a plumber under contract to make a sewer connection with one of the houses on the street, had entered into an agreement with Lomastro (D) under which the latter did the necessary digging. A section of the concrete sidewalk had been removed, and D's men were in the trench at the time of P's injury. The trench extended from the curb across the sidewalk, three or four feet wide, and had been dug to a depth of seven or eight feet. The earth from the excavation had been thrown upon the sidewalk along both sides of the trench. P was walking northward on the sidewalk. On the far side of the trench as he approached it, there was a barricade, but along the side nearest him, there was only the pile of excavated material between him and the trench, about two feet high. P, because of defective eyesight, did not see the pile of earth and had no notice that it was there until he felt it under his feet as he walked upon it. The loose material slipped from under him, causing him to lose his footing and fall into the trench. P sued Ds. The trial court held that P was contributorily negligent. P could perceive light and, under favorable conditions, objects, but could not distinguish them. His sight was so impaired that his reference to himself in his statement of claim was as a 'blind person.' P was somewhat familiar with the neighborhood, and he managed to go about without an attendant, guided by the skyline of the buildings, and was able to keep on the sidewalk by means of the poles and trees along the curb or hedges marking the property lines. Under favorable light conditions, he was able to see dimly. On the witness stand, he could not see the trial judge, nor an examiner who was within five feet of him, nor the foreman of the jury six feet away. P did not carry a cane and, because he was unable to see, did not have notice of the break in the pavement, the pile of earth on the sidewalk, nor the open trench in front of him. The injury occurred in the early afternoon on a bright summer day. But for his blindness, he also would have seen a barricade along the north side of the trench. P got the verdict, and the appeals court reversed. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.