[blindlaw] Fw:AccommodationandComplianceseries:TheADAAmendmentsAct of 2008

Craig Borne cjborne at comcast.net
Sun Jan 4 22:27:25 UTC 2009


Mark,

In terms of negligence, this mode of mobility would most probably come under
fire.  Let's say that a blind individual opts to not use a cane or guide
dog, but instead prefers to navigate his surroundings via martial arts
training.  And let's further say that this blind individual injurs someone
or causes someone to become injured.  The injured party would most likely
sue under a theory of negligence.

The standard courts use to determine negligence is the "reasonable person
standard," and in this case, the standard would be the "reasonable blind
person standard."  In other words, would a similarly situated blind
individual know or should have known that his actions (i.e., using martial
arts instead of a cane or other mobility device) could cause the foreseeable
injury.

Since it is very rare for a blind individual to not use some type of
mobility device and even rarer for the individual to use martial arts
training to "get around," courts would most likely determine that the
actions were not reasonable and were indeed negligent.  

Craig

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defense of custom."  --Thomas Paine, Common Sense

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mark BurningHawk
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:42 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re:
[blindlaw]Fw:AccommodationandComplianceseries:TheADAAmendmentsAct of 2008

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this point, but it wasn't my intention 
to persuade anyone of the efficacy of anything.  I just posed a question as 
to whether a certain approach to disability might come under fire.  I'm 
sorry I'm not making myself understood.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Doerr" <rumpole at roadrunner.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: 
[blindlaw]Fw:AccommodationandComplianceseries:TheADAAmendmentsAct of 2008


> Martial aart truly has been around for several thousand years. But it 
> never was, and is still not intended to be applied to individuals with a 
> disability as an aid or remedial skill for that disability.
> It does not translate into anything related to a mobility aid, be it dog 
> or cane.
> Mark, I was in martial arts for many, many years both during and after I 
> went blind. I find it to be great exercise and good self disciplin. It is 
> an ancient and excellent form of fighting and self defense.
> But it truly has no place for consideration in either mobility or in the 
> definition of "disability" under any law.
> IT is a philosophy that is part physical and part disciplin.
>
>
>
> You're
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "T. Joseph Carter" <carter.tjoseph at gmail.com>
> To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 
> Fw:AccommodationandComplianceseries:TheADAAmendmentsAct of 2008
>
>
>> The problem is that if you're focused on Bollywood's fictional accounts 
>> of legendary martial artists with disabilities, you're more likely to 
>> fall down a flight of stairs or something than stand up to scrutiny.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:58:49AM -0800, Mark BurningHawk wrote:
>>> A martial arts approach to disability and mobility may, if the 
>>> definition of disability were to rely upon the uses of such things as 
>>> canes or dogs. Respectfully, I would point out that the martial arts are

>>> older than the white cane by several thousand years, so "time proven," 
>>> seems to be a rather poor criterion upon which to judge.  Look, I'm not 
>>> saying one's better than the other, just doing what I normally do, 
>>> thinking outside the box to see if the box will stand up.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindlaw mailing list
>> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>> blindlaw:
>>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rumpole%40adelphia
.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> blindlaw:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/stone_troll%40sbcg
lobal.net 


_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
blindlaw:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/cjborne%40comcast.
net





More information about the BlindLaw mailing list