Davies v. Mann Case Brief: Establishing the Last Clear Chance Doctrine in Negligence Law

Davies v. Mann, 152 Eng. Rep. 588 (1842)

Court: Court of Exchequer
Year: 1842

Facts: Davies (plaintiff) tethered his donkey by the side of a public road, and the animal wandered onto the road. Mann (defendant) was driving his wagon down the same road at a fast pace and ran over the donkey, killing it. Davies sued Mann for damages.

Issue: Can a plaintiff recover damages if their own negligence contributed to the circumstances leading to the defendant's negligent act?

Holding: Yes, the plaintiff can recover damages even if their negligence contributed to the incident, provided the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and failed to do so.

Reasoning: The court established the doctrine of "last clear chance," which allows a negligent plaintiff to recover damages if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to exercise reasonable care. Despite the donkey being negligently placed on the road by Davies, Mann had the last clear chance to avoid hitting the donkey by driving more carefully or at a slower pace. His failure to do so constituted negligence that directly caused the donkey's death.

Ruling: The court ruled in favor of Davies, awarding him damages for the loss of his donkey. This decision underscored the principle that a negligent defendant cannot escape liability if they had the last clear chance to prevent the accident but did not take appropriate action.

Similar Cases:

**1. Butterfield v. Forrester, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (1809): In this case, the court established the principle of contributory negligence, where a plaintiff could not recover damages if their own negligence contributed to the harm. This case contrasted with Davies v. Mann by highlighting a different approach to handling negligence.

**2. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Loach, [1916] 1 A.C. 719: This case from the Privy Council applied the last clear chance doctrine, holding that even if a plaintiff was negligent, they could recover damages if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident and failed to do so.

**3. St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. v. Schumacher, 152 U.S. 77 (1894): The U.S. Supreme Court applied the last clear chance doctrine, ruling that a plaintiff could recover damages despite their own negligence if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the injury.

Cases Cited in Davies v. Mann:

**1. Rigby v. Hewitt, 5 Exch. 240 (1850): In this case, the court discussed the concept of negligence and the circumstances under which a defendant could be held liable despite the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

**2. Tuff v. Warman, 5 C.B. (N.S.) 573 (1859): This case reinforced the last clear chance doctrine, holding that a defendant who has the final opportunity to avoid an accident but fails to do so is liable for the resulting harm.