When it was not only foreseeable that a blind person would walk down the street, it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’.
What happened?
Please note this case goes back to 1965.
A hole had been dug in a pavement by the London Electrical Board. When the workers left the area on their break, they realised that they had not been provided with the necessary materials to fence off the area. They thought it would be sufficient to leave an upright shovel near the hole as a warning to any pedestrians who passed through.
A blind man did not see the warning. As a result, he fell into the pit and sustained injuries. He made a claim for compensation, requiring him to prove negligence.
Proving negligence involves establishing that the defendant (the organisation employing the diggers) owed the claimant (the blind man) a duty of care, which they breached in a manner which caused the claimant recoverable harm. To establish a breach of any duty owed, the claimant must establish that the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person would in their position.
The issue was whether the defendant was in breach of their duty, given that they argued that they had taken sufficient steps to enable normally-sighted people to be safe. They argued that it was not foreseeable that a blind person would enter the area without assistance.
Legal Outcome
The London Electrical Board was held to be in breach of their duty of care in 1965.
The extent to which the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions was indeed a crucial factor when determining how a reasonable person would behave in the circumstances.
However, the court was not convinced that it was unforeseeable that a blind person would walk down the street. If it was sufficiently foreseeable that a disabled person would be at risk of harm, the court held, the defendant was obliged to take reasonable steps to protect them from harm, not just able-bodied persons.
What can we learn from what happened?
This case goes back to 1965, and is a nice and simple example of how, even well before HASAWA in 1974, the principle of duty of care was used to settle civil disputes such as this.
It also neatly explores ‘reasonable foreseeability’. The diggers argued that it was not foreseeable that a blind man would enter the area without assistance. They are basing their judgement on likelihood, and yes it would be very, very unlikely that this would occur, but not unlikely enough for the judge to be satisfied.
These days, of course, simply propping a shovel up to indicate to passing pedestrians that there was a hole they could fall into, would not satisfy any judge in the land either. They were different times – standards and what society can reasonably expect from organisations to keep people safe have moved on.
Source of Information
Law Teacher