Court: Washington Supreme Court; April 30, 1959; Washington; State Supreme Court
In the personal injury case Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen, the Washington Supreme Court addresses the city's appeal of a judgment favoring the respondents, who were injured due to the city's negligence. The city had excavated a ditch for underground electric wires and initially erected barricades for pedestrian safety. However, an employee removed the barriers for work purposes and failed to replace them, resulting in an unprotected excavation.
The respondent, who is blind, approached the intersection with a cane and tools, unaware of the excavation due to the missing barriers. The jury found the city negligent for not maintaining the safety of the area, as the duty to keep sidewalks and adjacent parking strips safe is ongoing. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's decision, rejecting the city's claim that the initial barricades fulfilled their duty.
The city's arguments also included objections to jury instructions, particularly regarding the standard of care required for maintaining parking strips versus sidewalks. The court clarified that the city was not held to a higher standard because of the plaintiff's blindness and reiterated that the city must provide reasonable warnings rather than complete barricades. Overall, the court upheld the jury's findings and the lower court's rulings on the city’s motions.
In Ulve v. Raymond, Ewer v. Johnson, and Morehouse v. Everett, the court did not address the issue of care owed to pedestrians with physical infirmities, which was highlighted by the Oregon Supreme Court. It emphasized that public thoroughfares are accessible to all, regardless of physical ability, and that individuals with impairments can use the streets without being considered negligent, provided they exercise care appropriate to their condition. This principle was noted in Hestand v. Hamlin but later overruled in Hunt v. St. Louis and Hanke v. St. Louis. The general rule, as articulated in Cook v. City of Winston-Salem, asserts that those responsible for public walkways must ensure they are safe for all pedestrians, including those who are blind or physically disabled, while these individuals must also exercise due care. The standard of care expected from cities or authorities remains ordinary or reasonable, but the afflictions of pedestrians must be factored into determining whether this standard has been met. Dean Prosser's view suggests that individuals with disabilities should take precautions that a reasonable person would take if similarly afflicted, allowing for flexibility in the application of the standard of care. The court reiterated that cities are aware that their streets will be used by individuals with various physical conditions and that the obligation to exercise care is mutual; both the city and the pedestrian have responsibilities to mitigate risk.
Streets are designated for public use, accommodating individuals with various physical abilities without discrimination. The law imposes equal care obligations on both disabled individuals and the city; the disabled must exercise reasonable care according to their condition, while the city must inform them of potential dangers. The court found no error in denying the appellant's instruction regarding these duties. The appellant also contested the inclusion of the respondent's loss of earnings as damages, which was deemed valid, leading to the affirmation of the judgment.
The document clarifies that the area between the sidewalk and curb, known as the parking strip, is a public street segment and walking across it is lawful. Municipalities are responsible for maintaining these strips in a reasonably safe condition. Previous court rulings established that a city's duty to maintain safe sidewalks involves ordinary care for typical travel modes, not special provisions for those with disabilities. However, these rulings have been significantly overruled by higher court decisions, which reaffirm the city's duty. Additionally, if a plaintiff suffers harm due to a city's negligence, their intoxication does not absolve the city of responsibility, as everyone deserves safe streets.
