Contributory negligenceAll or nothing ruleCourt of King's Bench (England)

Butterfield v Forrester

(1809) 11 East 6018091 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The defendant had negligently placed an obstruction (a pole) across part of a public road. The plaintiff, riding his horse at a fast pace and without reasonable care for his own safety, failed to observe the obstruction in time. He collided with it and was injured. He sued the defendant for negligence.
Issue
Whether a plaintiff whose own negligence contributed to an accident can recover damages from a defendant whose negligence also contributed.
Held
The plaintiff's own negligence, in failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, contributed to the accident. Since this contributory negligence existed, the plaintiff was barred from recovering any damages at all, regardless of the defendant's own negligence in leaving the obstruction. This established the historical all-or-nothing rule for contributory negligence.
Principle
Contributory negligence by the plaintiff operated as a complete bar to recovery, regardless of the relative degree of fault.
Cite this

Facts

  • The defendant had negligently placed an obstruction (a pole) across part of a public road. The plaintiff, riding his horse at a fast pace and without reasonable care for his own safety, failed to observe the obstruction in time. He collided with it and was injured. He sued the defendant for negligence.

Issue

  1. Whether a plaintiff whose own negligence contributed to an accident can recover damages from a defendant whose negligence also contributed.

Held

  • The plaintiff's own negligence, in failing to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, contributed to the accident. Since this contributory negligence existed, the plaintiff was barred from recovering any damages at all, regardless of the defendant's own negligence in leaving the obstruction. This established the historical all-or-nothing rule for contributory negligence.

Ratio decidendi

At common law, any degree of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, however comparatively minor relative to the defendant's own fault, operated as a complete bar to recovery. This harsh rule was subsequently superseded by modern comparative fault statutory reform.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Key line: "In Butterfield v Forrester (1809), the court established the historical all-or-nothing rule: any contributory negligence by the plaintiff barred recovery entirely, regardless of the defendant's greater fault."
  • Always pair with the modern comparative fault reform to show the historical trajectory of this doctrine.

Cite this

Citation

Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) 11 East 60

Reported: (1809) 11 East 60. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.