Legal Implication of Solo Experiences in Orientation and Mobility Training

Abstract

Orientation and mobility instructors, administrators, and members of the legal profession were surveyed to obtain information on the use of “solo” travel experience during training and to examine the instructor's liability in case of student injury. A list of precautions was developed to protect the student and also to reduce the possibility of the instructor's being sued for negligence. Since no actual legal suit was found in the survey or in the literature, legal opinion is given on a hypothetical case. Guidance was also obtained from court decisions where instructors of sighted children had been sued for negligence.

Orientation and mobility remote instruction during COVID-19: Best practices, liability, and ethics

“…“Negligence is that conduct which falls below a prescribed standard established for the protection of others. This hypothetical standard is what a reasonable and prudent teacher in this situation would or should have done” ( Bina, 1976 , p. 226). To establish the hypothetical standard of care, professional standards, the COMS Code of Ethics, and expert opinions through a panel of professional peers would be used to evaluate the actions deemed negligent ( Daggett, 2014 ).…”

“…“One must consider the misconceptions that a jury might have regarding [disabilities]. Included in this is the overprotectiveness of and sympathy for the injured [person with a visual impairment]” ( Bina, 1976 , p. 227).…”