[nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Tue Mar 23 05:25:38 UTC 2010

With all do respect I read the law a little differently. The ones I sent,
legally preclude any responsibility  for said accident on anyone other then
the sighted driver. That is not to say that the blind person could have
contributed to the matter due to any number of reasons, but the law as I
interpret it  does not at all consider contribution on the part of the blind
pedestrian to the problem. Onus is on the driver  or so it seems to me.

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 10:01 PM
To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

Albert,
    This law serves to not assign contributory megligence only based upon 
blindness. In other words, an attorney cannot argue that a person's 
blindness was a contribitor the a crash. It does not, however, preclude 
assigning contributory negligence if it can be shown that the blind person 
was negligent by not using due caution. If a blind person steps out in front

of a moving vehicle that cannot be stopped , it does not excuse such 
behavior.

Fraternally yours,
Marion

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Albert J Rizzi" <albert at myblindspot.org>
To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'" 
<nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick street

> MARION, I AM NOT SURE THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY CORRECT IN THIS
> REGARD. AFTER RESEARCH IT SEEMS THAT MANY STATES HAVE AMENDED THIS LAW TO
> PRECLUDE THE BLIND FROM BEING CONTRIBITORILY NEGLAGENT OR RESPONSIBLE IN
> SOME WAY FOR HAVING BEEN HIT. I HAVE FOUND THESE REFERENCES ONE OF WHICH I
> THINK IS FROM A SOUTHERN STATE AND THE OTHER IS WISCONSIN. SO IT SEEMS TO
> VARY FROM STATE TO STATE. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF WISCONSIN
> FOR SURE IF WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE IN YOUR STATE. WE SHOULD HAVE ONE
> CONSISTANT AND CONSTANT LAW FROM STATE TO STATE FOR THOSE OF us who travel
> across our country,
>
> PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAW
>
>
>
> White Cane Law 752.52 Sec. 2.(1) A driver of a vehicle shall not approach 
> a
> crosswalk..., or any other pedestrian crossing without taking all 
> necessary
> precautions to avoid accident or injury to a blind pedestrian carrying a
> cane or using a guide dog.
> (2) A driver who approaches a crosswalk or any other pedestrian crossing
> without taking all necessary precautions to avoid accident or injury to a
> blind pedestrian carrying a cane or using a guide dog shall be liable in
> damages for any injuries caused the blind pedestrian...
> 752.53 Sec. 3. A person who violates section 2(1) is guilty of a
> misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or by a
> fine of not more than $100.00 or both.
>
> Then there is Wisconsin:
>
> Blind pedestrian on highway.
>
> 1) An operator of a vehicle shall stop the vehicle before approaching 
> closer
> than 10 feet to a pedestrian who is carrying a cane or walking stick which
> is white in color or white trimmed with red and which is held in an 
> extended
> or raised position or who is using a dog guide and shall take such
> precautions as may be necessary to avoid accident or injury to the
> pedestrian. The fact that the pedestrian may be violating any of the laws
> applicable to pedestrians does not relieve the operator of a vehicle from
> the duties imposed by this subsection.
>
> 2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to deprive any totally or
> partially blind person not carrying the white or the red and white cane or
> walking stick or not using a dog guide of the rights of other pedestrians
> crossing highways, nor shall the failure of such totally or partially 
> blind
> pedestrian to carry such cane or walking stick or to use a dog guide be
> evidence of any negligence.
>
> 3) No person who is not totally or partially blind shall carry or use on 
> any
> street, highway or other public place any cane or walking stick which is
> white in color, or white trimmed with red.
>
> Last Revised: February 22, 2010
>
> And then there is the Florida statute. No where does it lay claim to a 
> blind
> person and their negligence, on the contrary, it goes as far as to assert
> that anywhere a blind person steps off a curb to cross a street puts the
> burden of responsibility solely in the lap of the driver.
>
> White Cane Law: 316.1301  Traffic regulations to assist blind persons
> (1)  It is unlawful for any person, unless totally or partially blind or
> otherwise incapacitated, while on any public street or highway, to carry 
> in
> a raised or extended position a cane or walking stick which is white in
> color or white tipped with red. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of
> this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, 
> punishable
> as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
>
> (2)  Whenever a pedestrian is crossing, or attempting to cross, a public
> street or highway, guided by a dog guide or carrying in a raised or 
> extended
> position a cane or walking stick which is white in color or white tipped
> with red, the driver of every vehicle approaching the intersection or 
> place
> where the pedestrian is attempting to cross shall bring his or her vehicle
> to a full stop before arriving at such intersection or place of crossing
> and, before proceeding, shall take such precautions as may be necessary to
> avoid injuring such pedestrian. A person who is convicted of a violation 
> of
> this subsection is guilty of a moving violation punishable as provided in
> chapter 318.
>
> (3)  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to deprive any
> totally or partially blind or otherwise incapacitated person not carrying
> such a cane or walking stick, or not being guided by a dog, of the rights
> and privileges conferred by law upon pedestrians crossing streets or
> highways. The failure of any such person to carry a cane or walking stick 
> or
> to be guided by a dog shall not be considered comparative negligence, nor
> shall such failure be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil
> action with regard to negligence.
>
>
> I would like to see the law you are referencing here in the hopes we could
> amend the one you are relying on, peace.
>
>
>
>
> 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 5:34 AM
> To: NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick 
> street
>
> Dan,
>    One scenario in which a blind person could have been at fault in such a
> crash is if the blind person stepped out in front of the vehicle and the
> operator was unable to avoid the crash! The White Cane Law does not give 
> us
> carte blanche to cross an intersection at any time nor absolve us from any
> responsibilities for our safe travel!
>
> Fraternally yours,
> Marion Gwizdala
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dan Weiner" <dcwein at dcwein.cnc.net>
> To: "'NAGDU Mailing List, the National Association of Guide Dog Users'"
> <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [nagdu] Washington - Guide dog killed crossing Kennewick 
> street
>
>
>> How exactly would the blind person be responsible in this accident, what
>> about our trusty White Cane Law.
>> The fact that no one complies with the law doesn't mean that lack of
>> compliance isn't a criminal act.
>>
>> Dan W. and the Carter Dog
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/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