New Hampshire
How Butterfield v. Forrester applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
New Hampshire law follows the comparative negligence standard, allowing for the apportionment of fault among parties. The principles from Butterfield v. Forrester, which established contributory negligence, are tailored to reflect a more lenient approach to plaintiffs when assessing their liability.
In New Hampshire, a plaintiff's recovery may be reduced based on their percentage of fault, emphasizing a comparative negligence framework rather than a complete bar to recovery.
The court held that the plaintiff's failure to heed safety warnings was a factor but did not bar recovery; the fault was apportioned based on comparative principles.
The court affirmed that even if the plaintiff was partially at fault, recovery is possible as long as their fault is less than that of the defendant.
The court emphasized that the comparative negligence doctrine allows recovery even when the plaintiff's negligence contributes to the accident.
New Hampshire's comparative negligence system stands in contrast to the contributory negligence rule echoed in some federal cases, which may bar recovery entirely if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly negligent. Federal courts often adhere to a stricter application of contributory negligence compared to the more flexible comparative negligence approach in New Hampshire.
Understanding the application of comparative negligence principles in New Hampshire, particularly as influenced by Butterfield v. Forrester, is essential for tackling Torts questions on the New Hampshire bar exam.