This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: though Forrester was negligent , the accident would not have occurred without Butterfield's negligence . Both parties were therefore equally at fault for the accident. PL’s negligence was held to bar recovery. Court’s Reasoning: An obstruction left in the road by the fault of the D will not cause D to be totally liable if PL does not use ordinary care to avoid it. One person at fault will not dispense with the requirement that another person use ordinary car for himself. Riding a horse as fast as it could go through the streets, near dark is not the exercise of ordinary care. A person cannot ride upon a hazard and expect the other to be solely at fault when he shares in the fault. Judgment and Order: PL was contributory at fault with D so no recovery. Comments: Known as the first case that shows contributory negligence....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/13/2008 for the course HISTORY 101 taught by Professor Jenkins during the Spring '08 term at Rutgers.
- Spring '08