Butterfield v. Forrester Case Brief: The Foundation of Contributory Negligence in Common Law

Butterfield v. Forrester, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (1809)

Court: Court of King's Bench
Year: 1809

Facts: Forrester (defendant) placed a pole across part of a public road while making repairs to his house. Butterfield (plaintiff), riding his horse at a high speed in the evening, did not see the obstruction in time and was thrown from his horse, suffering injuries. Butterfield sued Forrester for negligence.

Issue: Can a plaintiff recover damages if their own negligence contributed to the accident?

Holding: No, the plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered.

Reasoning: The court held that a plaintiff must exercise ordinary care and that a lack of such care, which contributes to the harm, will bar recovery. The principle of contributory negligence was established, which means if a plaintiff's negligence contributed to the injury, they cannot claim damages. Butterfield was riding at an excessive speed and did not exercise reasonable care to avoid the pole, which contributed to his accident. Therefore, he was not entitled to recover damages from Forrester.

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Forrester, denying Butterfield any damages. The decision emphasized the importance of personal responsibility and the need for plaintiffs to exercise ordinary care to avoid harm.

Similar Cases:

**1. Davies v. Mann, 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1842): In contrast to Butterfield, this case introduced the "last clear chance" doctrine, allowing a negligent plaintiff to recover damages if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so.

**2. Tuff v. Warman, 5 C.B. (N.S.) 573 (1859): This case reinforced the "last clear chance" doctrine, demonstrating how courts balanced contributory negligence with opportunities for defendants to avoid accidents.

**3. Fletcher v. Rylands, 159 Eng. Rep. 737 (1868): Although primarily about strict liability, this case is relevant for understanding the evolution of liability principles, contrasting with contributory negligence in Butterfield.

Cases Cited in Butterfield v. Forrester:

**1. Hill v. Warren, 2 Stark. 377 (1814): This case involved contributory negligence, where the court denied recovery because the plaintiff failed to exercise due care.

**2. Smith v. Dobson, 3 C. & P. 416 (1828): Another contributory negligence case where the plaintiff's lack of ordinary care barred recovery for damages.