Butterfield v. Forrester
Encyclopedia
Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East. 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809), was an English case
before the King's Bench
that was the first appearance of contributory negligence
as a common law
defense
against negligence
.
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 favor. The jury returned a verdict for Forrester and Butterfield appealed.
Legal case
A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process. A legal case may be either civil or criminal...
before the King's Bench
King's Bench
The Queen's Bench is the superior court in a number of jurisdictions within some of the Commonwealth realms...
that was the first appearance of contributory negligence
Contributory negligence
Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff/claimant has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered...
as a common law
Common law
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
defense
Defense (legal)
In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability...
against negligence
Negligence
Negligence is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.According to Jay M...
.
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 stuck 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 favor. The jury returned a verdict for Forrester and Butterfield appealed.