[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

[Albert J Rizzi]

Will you clearly provide a reference which states this position you take? Or
can you clarify if this is how you  choose to interpret the law. I am
concerned others will misunderstand you here as I do, so I sent a few
references from some states. Please show us where your laws say the blind
person is or can be considered contributoraly negligent if hit buy the
driver of a vehicle.. 

Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
CEO/Founder
My Blind Spot, Inc.
90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
New York, New York  10004
www.myblindspot.org
PH: 917-553-0347
Fax: 212-858-5759
"The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
doing it."


Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn



-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of Marion Gwizdala
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:03 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Tracy,
    I am not implying that it is the blind guy's fault. I am only saying 
that the white cane law does not excuse the blind person from using due 
caution while crossing!

Marion


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tracy Carcione" <carcione at access.net>
To: "NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street


> Marion, while it's true that the blind person could be responsible, it
> seems to me that the assumption is just that--blind guy gets hit, blind
> guy is at fault.  It ain't necessarily so.
> I've heard that, many years ago, if a blind person was hit and brought the
> case to court, it would be dismissed or the blind person would lose.  We
> were assumed to have been negligent just because we were walking around
> outside without a sighted keeper.
> I think that law has changed, but I'm not so sure about the underlying
> assumption.
>
> We have to be careful, of course.  We can't go bounding out into the
> street without trying to make sure it's safe to go, as best we can.  But
> the White Cane law says that drivers also have some responsibility not to
> turn on top of us, or back out over us, or whatever. It doesn't seem too
> much to ask.
> Tracy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nagdu mailing list
> nagdu at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nagdu:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/blind411%40verizon.ne
t 


_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nagdu:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/albert%40myblindspot.
org