Butterfield v. Forrester case brief summary
F: The trial court ruled in favor of D.
P was riding along the road and was thrown down with his horse. He was injured due to the pole that the defendant had put up. The evidence shows that if the Plaintiff had not been riding hard he might have observed and avoided it.It doesn’t matter how the the individual was negligent.
But for P’s negligence, the accident would not have occurred. (But for cause and proximate cause)
Dependent concurrent causation
R: P may not recover damages against a neg. D if the P did not exercise reasonable care to avoid the injury
There were negligence attributable both to P and D, an obstruction in the road by the fault of D, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of P.If D proves P’s negligence it’s concurrent cause of the P’s own injury, he may not recover or his injuries from the D.
C: the case was reversed
Co: this is a very minority position in United States.
F: The trial court ruled in favor of D.
P was riding along the road and was thrown down with his horse. He was injured due to the pole that the defendant had put up. The evidence shows that if the Plaintiff had not been riding hard he might have observed and avoided it.It doesn’t matter how the the individual was negligent.
But for P’s negligence, the accident would not have occurred. (But for cause and proximate cause)
Dependent concurrent causation
R: P may not recover damages against a neg. D if the P did not exercise reasonable care to avoid the injury
There were negligence attributable both to P and D, an obstruction in the road by the fault of D, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of P.If D proves P’s negligence it’s concurrent cause of the P’s own injury, he may not recover or his injuries from the D.
C: the case was reversed
Co: this is a very minority position in United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment