## Facts

- Joseph M. Smith, a door-to-door salesman with vision so impaired as to be “for all practical purposes” blind, was canvassing on foot in Philadelphia.
- Peter Sneller, a plumber, contracted to make a sewer connection on North Fifth Street and arranged for Lomastro to perform the excavation work.
- A concrete section of sidewalk was removed, and a trench extended from the curb across the sidewalk, approximately three to four feet wide and seven to eight feet deep.
- Excavated earth was piled along both sides of the trench; a barricade was placed on the far side of the trench but not on the side from which Smith approached.
- As Smith walked north on the sidewalk, he did not see the pile of earth; he stepped onto it, it shifted, and he fell into the trench.
- Smith walked alone and did not use a cane, guide dog, or sighted companion.

## Issues

1. Whether a pedestrian who is nearly blind and walks alone on a city sidewalk without a cane, companion, or similar compensating precaution is contributorily negligent as a matter of law after falling into an excavation across the sidewalk.
2. Whether the evidence permitted the question of Smith’s contributory negligence to go to the jury or required judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

## Decision

- The jury returned a verdict for Smith, and judgment was entered against Sneller and Lomastro for $500.
- On Sneller’s appeal, the Superior Court reversed and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Sneller, holding Smith contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, leaving in place judgment n.o.v. for Sneller.

## Legal Principles

- A person with impaired eyesight must exercise the care of an ordinarily prudent person in light of that impairment; the impairment may require greater precautions, not fewer.
- A blind person may not rely solely on other senses to detect sidewalk hazards and must use customary compensating safety measures (e.g., cane, guide dog, or companion) when ordinary prudence so requires.
- Because sidewalk obstructions and defects are commonly encountered in a city, a nearly blind pedestrian who proceeds without basic compensating precautions may be found contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
- When the material facts are not in dispute and the plaintiff’s lack of due care is clear, contributory negligence may be decided by the court rather than submitted to the jury, warranting judgment n.o.v.

## Conclusion

The court held that Smith’s near-blindness required him to take compensating safety measures when walking on city sidewalks, and his failure to do so made him contributorily negligent as a matter of law, barring recovery for injuries from the sidewalk excavation.


Smith v. Sneller, 345 Pa. 68, 26 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1942)