[nagdu] Was Guide dog killed - Contributory Negligence

Tue Mar 23 13:29:11 UTC 2010

You see now there is nothing I can or would disagree with in your statement.
Laws are laws and they are perverted or twisted as the times allow or the
process of law permits. It is up to the attorney for either side in any case
to make effective arguments to show when and where possible that this one or
that contributed in some way to the incident found to violate said law.
however, there is nothing written into the law that permits this, that is as
you said set by precedent and case law. it is not a clear cut fact included
in the drafting or passing of the law as I understand it. the law regardless
of what law it is, if an effective and articulate attorney can use his
skills to show how the law any law in any instance is or has not been
violated then that is and will be determined in a court of law before a
judge or a jury. It is not something I would like to see offered up as a
concrete fact before we determine the same is true in court. I do see and
understand how ineffective this law can be if trial attorneys can
effectively show contributory negligence on the part of any pedestrian, I
just want the attorney who represents me to interpret the law as I see it
unless and until a court decides otherwise. We have so many cards stacked
against us that the attorney I would work with would have to way all of the
considerations we are not taking when the safety of pedestrians blind or not
are considered. I also agree whole heartedly on the need for more education
and more education and oh yeah more education. I am new to this blind life
and I was one of those people who never gave much thought to the topic, I am
sickened to admit. But I never knew about such things and barely knew any
blind people at all. If I had known and I had been educated on the topics
and issues as the same relate to those of us who are differently abled I
think I may have done more for including this in my diversity appreciation
in school then I do now. 

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 David Baker
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:29 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Was Guide dog killed - Contributory Negligence

Albert, whether a defendant can be absolved of his or her own negligence by
pleading that the plaintiff contributed to his or her own injury by being
negligent is often a matter of precedential case law.  Contributory
negligence
is sometimes ruled out by statute, as it appears to be in many cane laws,
but
courts put it back into the equation in egregious situations where it is
believed that holding someone wholly liable for damages in a certain case
would
be unfair.  Often juries are given the task of determining just how much
fault
the victim had in creating an accident.  The concept of contributory
negligence
is an attempt to bring fairness to a tort system that must weigh difficult
facts.

Contributory negligence determinations depend upon social norms of the
times,
the skill of the attorneys in framing a case before a judge or jury, a very
complex statutory scheme, or the individual prejudices of the trier of fact.
Then, too, even if contributory negligence is ruled out by case or statutory
law, a driver may just not be determined to have been negligent or
responsible
for damages at all because of the facts.  Take the case where someone is
driving
too fast on an interstate expressway.  To what extent is he or she negligent
with respect to hitting a blind person with a cane who is attempting to
cross a
busy interstate?  What is a fair result?  How do you write a law to cover
these
situations?

For every case that holds that contributory negligence reduced or eliminated
a
victim's recovery, you will find another with almost identical facts that
holds
the other way.  Added to the plethora of inconsistent results is that states
also have different statutory schemes.  Cases involving children running out
from behind parked cars are a good example where the issue of 'fairness'
arises
all the time under tort law.  While statutes  with similar language in each
state would help generate more consistency,  there will never be certainty
in
this area of the law.  In some places, being blind will always limit the
victim's access to justice.  In others, no amount of fault on the part of
the
victim will limit the responsibility of the tortfeasor.  

Justice and certainty are difficult to achieve under the law, because we
cannot
predict all situations in a way that will allow us to write laws with
absolutely
rigid results.  I think you can see that this can also be a good thing.  The
task, it seems to me, is education and establishing a balance between the
needs
of society as a whole and the needs of those who require protection from
negligent behavior.  

All this being said, I share your underlying anger about the fact that it
often
appears that those of us who are visually impaired are fair game for
inconsiderate and reckless people.

Yours in this uncertain world,

David

-----Original Message-----
From: nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
Of
Albert J Rizzi
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 1:30 AM
To: 'NAGDU Mailing List,the National Association of Guide Dog Users'
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

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

_______________________________________________
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/david%40bakerinet.com

_______________________________________________
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