Business Law and Economics Case Briefs
Butterfield v. Forrester
Factual Situation:
1809, Butterfield, plaintiff was riding and struck an a pole placed in the road by Forrester, defendant, at approximately 8 PM; sued for damages
Witness testified that pole was visible at 100 yards with light at that time, and that Butterfield was riding recklessly
Trial court: jury instructed that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole and that Butterfield was not riding with care, Forester should win
Trial Court rules in favor of Forrester; Appellate court upholds
Incipient use of contributory negligence: principle that a plaintiff is the more liable party in a negligence case, cause injury to themselves regardless of defendant
Legal Issues: Does the negligence of the plaintiff supersede possible negligence of the defendant?
Court’s Analysis: Butterfield would have seen the obstruction if he had used ordinary care.
No injured plaintiff may recover damages against a negligent defendant if that plaintiff did not exercise reasonable and ordinary care to avoid the injury
Lord Ellenborough (appellate court judge) – “One person being in fault will not dispense with the requirement that the other must use ordinary care for himself”
Davies v. Mann
Factual Situation:
In 1842, Plaintiff, Davies, had illegally tethered his along a public highway, such that it could not move, “fettered.”
Defendant, Mann, came along at a quick pace and hit the ass, resulting in death
Mann’s slave testified that that Mann was negligent, unskilled, and careless I nthe management of his wagon and horses
Trial court found for Plaintiff, Appellate upheld
Legal Issue: If the defendant had an opportunity to avoid the accident after the plaintiff no longer had such an opportunity, and the defendant improperly did not avoid the accident, he is liable
Court’s Analysis:
Judge instructed trial court that even if fettering ass was illegal, if proximate cause o the injury was attributable to lack of
Factual Situation:
1809, Butterfield, plaintiff was riding and struck an a pole placed in the road by Forrester, defendant, at approximately 8 PM; sued for damages
Witness testified that pole was visible at 100 yards with light at that time, and that Butterfield was riding recklessly
Trial court: jury instructed that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole and that Butterfield was not riding with care, Forester should win
Trial Court rules in favor of Forrester; Appellate court upholds
Incipient use of contributory negligence: principle that a plaintiff is the more liable party in a negligence case, cause injury to themselves regardless of defendant
Legal Issues: Does the negligence of the plaintiff supersede possible negligence of the defendant?
Court’s Analysis: Butterfield would have seen the obstruction if he had used ordinary care.
No injured plaintiff may recover damages against a negligent defendant if that plaintiff did not exercise reasonable and ordinary care to avoid the injury
Lord Ellenborough (appellate court judge) – “One person being in fault will not dispense with the requirement that the other must use ordinary care for himself”
Davies v. Mann
Factual Situation:
In 1842, Plaintiff, Davies, had illegally tethered his along a public highway, such that it could not move, “fettered.”
Defendant, Mann, came along at a quick pace and hit the ass, resulting in death
Mann’s slave testified that that Mann was negligent, unskilled, and careless I nthe management of his wagon and horses
Trial court found for Plaintiff, Appellate upheld
Legal Issue: If the defendant had an opportunity to avoid the accident after the plaintiff no longer had such an opportunity, and the defendant improperly did not avoid the accident, he is liable
Court’s Analysis:
Judge instructed trial court that even if fettering ass was illegal, if proximate cause o the injury was attributable to lack of