## Facts

- Forrester, while repairing his house next to a public highway, placed a pole across part of the roadway, leaving some portion of the way open for passage.
- Around 8 p.m. in August at twilight, Butterfield left a nearby public house and rode his horse at very high speed along the same road.
- Although candles were being lit, there was sufficient natural light for a person using reasonable care to see the pole from a substantial distance (about 100 yards).
- A witness testified that Butterfield was riding “very fast” and that, if he had not been riding at “break-neck” speed, he could have seen and avoided the obstruction.
- There was no evidence Butterfield was intoxicated, but he did not perceive the pole, struck it, was thrown from the horse, and suffered injuries.
- Butterfield sued in negligence (action on the case), alleging Forrester’s obstruction of the highway caused the accident.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury to find for Forrester if a reasonably careful rider could have avoided the pole and if Butterfield was riding without ordinary care.
- The jury returned a verdict for Forrester; Butterfield moved for a new trial, arguing the obstruction should establish liability.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover for injuries caused by a defendant’s negligent obstruction of a highway when the plaintiff’s own lack of ordinary care contributed to the accident.
2. Whether contributory negligence operates as a complete bar to recovery in a negligence action.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench denied the motion for a new trial and left the defense verdict undisturbed.
- The court held Butterfield could not recover because he failed to use “common and ordinary caution,” and his lack of ordinary care contributed to the accident.
- The court accepted that the defendant’s conduct created an obstruction, but ruled that the plaintiff’s concurrent negligence defeated the claim.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff cannot recover for negligence if the plaintiff’s own want of ordinary care contributed to the injury.
- A defendant’s fault in creating a roadway obstruction does not excuse the plaintiff from using ordinary care for self-protection.
- To recover, the plaintiff must show both: (1) an obstruction or danger caused by the defendant’s fault, and (2) no want of ordinary care by the plaintiff to avoid it.
- Contributory negligence functions as a complete defense when the plaintiff’s negligent act or omission materially contributes to the harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that even if the defendant wrongfully obstructed the highway, the plaintiff’s failure to exercise common and ordinary caution—shown by riding at excessive speed when the obstruction was visible—barred recovery, establishing contributory negligence as a complete defense to negligence liability.


Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60 (K.B. 1809)