## Facts

- William J. Poyner, a legally blind pedestrian, visited Parklane Cleaners along Connecticut Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C.
- The cleaners’ entrance was adjacent to an inclined platform approximately four feet above street level.
- Poyner had previously walked by the area several times and knew its general layout.
- He believed bushes along the platform’s edge served as a “natural barrier” preventing a fall.
- Unknown to Poyner, one bush was missing, leaving a gap at the platform edge.
- While walking forward on the elevated platform, Poyner heard someone call “Billy!” from the street, turned his head toward the voice, and continued walking toward where he expected a bush to be.
- He stepped into the gap, fell approximately four feet off the platform, and was injured.
- Poyner sued the building owners, property manager, and the dry cleaner’s proprietor for negligent failure to maintain reasonably safe premises.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in Poyner’s favor, a reasonable jury could find he exercised reasonable care for his own safety, or whether he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
2. How the standard of care applies to a visually disabled plaintiff—specifically, whether Poyner acted as a reasonably prudent person with the same disability would under the circumstances.
3. Whether contributory negligence, if established, barred recovery and justified summary judgment.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held Poyner was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- Because the District of Columbia applies strict contributory negligence, Poyner’s negligence completely barred recovery.

## Legal Principles

- A person with a physical disability must exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person with the same disability would exercise under similar circumstances.
- Disability adjusts the standard of reasonable care but does not excuse inattention or eliminate the duty to take precautions appropriate to the disability.
- In the District of Columbia, any plaintiff negligence that proximately contributes to the injury is a complete bar to recovery.
- Although contributory negligence is usually a jury question, summary judgment is proper when undisputed facts permit only one reasonable inference: the plaintiff failed to exercise due care.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a reasonably prudent legally blind person would not continue forward on a known elevated platform while looking away and relying on an assumed barrier; because Poyner’s lack of care contributed to his fall, strict contributory negligence barred his negligence claim as a matter of law.


Poyner v. Loftus, 694 A.2d 69 (D.C. 1997)