Likely to occur the plaintiffs negligence is too

This preview shows page 36 - 37 out of 78 pages.

likely to occur, the plaintiff’s negligence is too remote to act as a bar to recovery. The standard of care in contributory negligence is the same as in ordinary negligence; i.e., that which a reasonable person would have done under the same or similar circumstances. The act or omission of an injured party which amounts to contributory negligence must be a negligent act or omission, and it must serve as a proximate cause of the injury and not merely as a condition. An act or omission that merely increases or adds to the extent of the loss or injury will generally not preclude recovery. It may however reduce the amount of damages. If a plaintiff voluntarily disregards warnings and assumes the risk of certain dangers, but is injured through the negligence of the defendant from an entirely different source of danger, of which she was not and could not have been aware, and of whose existence it was the duty of the defendant to warn, then the plaintiff’s failure to heed the warning does not constitute contributory negligence. The defense of contributory negligence generally is not available for intentional torts or where the defendant is found to be guilty of wanton and willful misconduct. It can also be unavailable where the defendant has violated a statute clearly designed for the protection of the plaintiff. Contributory negligence is not a defense for strict liability torts unless the plaintiff has knowingly assumed an unreasonable risk. The majority rule is that if a person is injured while attempting to rescue another person or property from danger, the rescuer is not contributorily negligent unless the conduct is reckless. At common law, contributory negligence acted as a complete defence. And if the court established that the of making repairs to the house. Butterfield (P) was riding at high speed at approximately 8 PM at twilight and did not see the pole. He struck the pole and suffered personal injuries when he fell off his horse. A witness testified that visibility was 100 yards at the time of the accident and Butterfield might have observed and avoided the pole if he had not been riding at such a high speed. There was no evidence that Butterfield had been intoxicated at the time of the accident. At trial the judge instructed the jury that if an individual riding with reasonable care could have avoided the pole, and if the jury found that Butterfield had not used ordinary care in riding at high speed, the verdict should be in Forrester’s favor. The jury was directed under contributory negligence. The jury returned a verdict for Forrester and Butterfield appealed. Issue: If a plaintiff’s conduct falls below the standard established by law for the protection of self against an unreasonable risk of harm, can that plaintiff recover for personal injuries caused by a resulting accident?
Image of page 36

Subscribe to view the full document.

Image of page 37

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern