--- title: "Butterfield v. Forrester" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/butterfield-v-forrester --- # Butterfield v. Forrester Butterfield v. Forrester is the foundational case establishing the doctrine of contributory negligence. It held that a plaintiff who fails to exercise ordinary care for his own safety and whose own negligence contributes to his injury cannot recover from a negligent defendant. This harsh rule dominated Anglo-American tort law for over a century. ## Citation 11 East 60, 103 Eng. Rep. 926 (K.B. 1809) ## Year 1809 ## Court King's Bench (England) ## Facts The defendant obstructed part of a public road by placing a pole across it while making repairs to his house. The plaintiff was riding his horse at a high speed — described as riding violently — and did not see the obstruction, running into the pole and being injured. A witness testified that if the plaintiff had not been riding so fast, he could easily have seen and avoided the pole. ## Procedural History The trial court directed a nonsuit against the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a new trial, arguing the obstruction was the cause of his injury. The King's Bench upheld the nonsuit. ## Issue Whether a plaintiff who is injured partly as a result of his own failure to exercise ordinary care can recover damages from a defendant whose negligence also contributed to the injury. ## Holding The court held that a plaintiff whose own lack of ordinary care contributed to his injury cannot recover. One person being in fault does not dispense with the need for the other to use ordinary care for himself. Since the plaintiff could have avoided the injury by riding at a reasonable speed, his own negligence barred recovery. ## Reasoning The court reasoned that a party who fails to use common and ordinary caution to avoid a known or observable danger cannot recover for his injuries. Lord Ellenborough stated that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover if he could have avoided the injury by exercising ordinary care. The court applied a standard of mutual responsibility, requiring both parties to exercise reasonable care. The plaintiff's reckless riding was a contributing cause of his injury that precluded recovery. ## Impact Butterfield established the contributory negligence doctrine that prevailed in common law jurisdictions for more than 150 years. Under this rule, any negligence by the plaintiff, no matter how slight, completely barred recovery. The harshness of this rule eventually led most American jurisdictions to adopt comparative negligence systems in the twentieth century, but the case remains historically important as the origin of plaintiff fault analysis in negligence law. ## Key Quotes - One person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself. - A party is not to cast himself upon an obstruction which has been made by the fault of another, and avail himself of it, if he do not himself use common and ordinary caution to be in the right. ## Related Cases - brown-v-kendall - united-states-v-carroll-towing - palsgraf-v-long-island-railroad - hammontree-v-jenner ## Exam Relevance This case is tested in the context of plaintiff fault defenses. Students should understand how contributory negligence operates as a complete bar and be prepared to compare it with comparative negligence frameworks. Exam questions may ask students to analyze whether a jurisdiction's adoption of comparative negligence would change the outcome. ## Study Tips - Remember that contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery — even slight plaintiff negligence defeats the claim entirely. - Contrast contributory negligence with modern comparative fault systems (pure and modified) to understand the evolution of this doctrine. - Note that this doctrine applied only to negligence claims, not to intentional torts or strict liability. - Be prepared to discuss the policy arguments for and against the contributory negligence rule. ## Doctrine Established Contributory Negligence --- Source: [Butterfield v. Forrester — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/butterfield-v-forrester)