''Butterfield v. Forrester'', 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809), was an
English case
Case or CASE may refer to:
Instances
* Instantiation (disambiguation), a realization of a concept, theme, or design
* Special case, an instance that differs in a certain way from others of the type
Containers
* Case (goods), a package of relate ...
before the
King's Bench that was the first appearance of
contributory negligence
In some common law jurisdictions, contributory negligence is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own neg ...
as a
common law
Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...
defence against
negligence
Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a neg ...
.
Facts
Forrester (D) placed a pole against the road next to his house in the course of making repairs to the house. Butterfield (P) was riding at a high speed at approximately 8 pm at twilight and did not see the pole. He struck the pole and suffered personal injuries when he fell off his horse.
A witness testified that visibility was 100 yards away at the time of the accident and Butterfield might have seen and avoided the pole had he not been riding at such a high speed. There was no evidence that Butterfield had been intoxicated at the time of the accident.
At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole, and if the jury found that Butterfield had not used reasonable care, the verdict should be in Forrester's favour. The jury returned a verdict for Forrester and Butterfield appealed.
Decision
The court determined that the plaintiff had failed to use common and ordinary caution, and he was therefore barred from recovery.
[Henderson, p. 359]
Case law
*''
Davies v Mann''
*''
May v Burdett''
*''
Paris v Stepney BC''
*''
Winterbottom v Wright
''Winterbottom v Wright'' (184210 M&W 109was an important case in English common law responsible for constraining the law's 19th-century stance on negligence.
Facts
The plaintiff Winterbottom had been contracted by the Postmaster-General to dr ...
''
References
Negligence case law
1809 in case law
English tort case law
1809 in British law
Court of King's Bench (England) cases
{{UK-law-stub