Davis v. Feinstein (1952) (blind man falls through open cellar)

a.       Facts- Π was blind, and Δ is a shop owner. As Π was walking down the street, Π had his cane and was “feeling” his way through the street. Π then fell through an open cellar in front of Δ’s store. Π sued Δ for negligence and won. Δ argued that Π should have been contributorily negligent as a matter of law.

b.      Procedural History- Trial Ct found for Π, Δ appealed, Penn Sup Ct affirmed

c.       Issue- Whether Π was contributorily negligent for falling into the open cellar

d.      Holding- No, Π was NOT contributorily negligent for falling through the open cellar

e.       Rule- Reasonable due care, for a blind man, includes using artificial aids to help walk

f.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      A blind person is NOT bound to discover everything which a normal-sighted person would

                                                            ii.      Due care for a blind man includes using a cane/stick to walk…which is reasonable to ask of a blind man

                                                          iii.      The blind man could NOT have done anything else, he did the best he can in the circumstances