Fletcher v.

City of Aberdeen
338 P.2d 743 (Wash. 1959)

Facts: The City of Aberdeen (City) (defendant) dug a ditch in a parking strip next to one of its
sidewalks for the purpose of installing underground electric wires. The City erected barriers
around the ditch to warn of injury. However, one of the City’s workers removed some of the
barriers for the purpose of facilitating electric work. The worker negligently failed to replace the
barriers once he was finished. During the interval when the barriers were removed, Fletcher
(plaintiff), a blind man, fell into the ditch and was injured. He was using a cane and would have
detected the barriers if they had not been removed. Fletcher brought suit against the City for
negligence. The trial court awarded damages for Fletcher, and the City appealed.
Issue: Whether the standard of care required of a person with a disability is that of the level of
care which a reasonable person under the same or similar disability would exercise under the
circumstances.
Rule: The standard of care required of a person with a disability is that of the level of care which
a reasonable person under the same or similar disability would exercise under the circumstances.
Holding: The City is liable for the damage caused to Fletcher because it failed to provide
warning to persons with Fletcher’s disability of the presence of a ditch. Fletcher is not liable for
contributory negligence because he used the level of care that a reasonable person under the
same or similar disability would exercise under the circumstances. City owes same degree of
care to everyone walking down the street.
Reasoning: The standard of care required of a person with a disability is that of the level of care
which a reasonable person under the same or similar disability would exercise under the
circumstances. It is a partially subjective standard in that it considers an individual’s actual
physical disabilities in assigning liability for comparative negligence. The City had a legal duty
to protect all passersby on its streets from danger. This duty applied to both disabled and non-
disabled people. Thus, the City had a duty to provide reasonable protections for blind individuals
such as Fletcher and individuals with other disabilities. In failing to provide a constant barrier
which could be detected by a blind person taking ordinary precautions, the City did not fulfill its
duty and is liable for negligence. Fletcher is not liable for contributory negligence because he
used a cane for guidance and thus exercised the level of care which a reasonable person under
the same or similar disability would exercise under the circumstances. The decision of the trial
court is affirmed.