Butterfield against Forrester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 1809 |
| Date | 22 April 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 926
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Principle applied, Bridge v. Grand Junction Railway Company, 1838, 3 M. & W. 248; Tuff v. Warman, 1858, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 585. Dictum adopted, The Thuringia, 1872, 26 L. T. 455. Principle explained, The Vera Cruz (No. 1), 1884, 9 P. D. 94; 10 App. Cas. 59; The Bernina (No. 2), 1887-88, 12 P. D. 69; sub nom. Mills v. Armstrong, 13 App. Cas. 1.
[60] butterfield against forrestek.' Saturda'y, April 22*d, 1809. One who is injured by an obstruction in a highway against which he fell, cannot maintain an action if it appear that he was riding with great violence and want of ordinary care, without which he might have seen and avoided the obstruction. [Principle applied, Bridge v. Grand Junction Railway Company, 1838, 3 M. & W. 248; Tu/v. Warman, 1858, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 585. Dictum adopted, The-Thuringia, 1872, 26 L. T. 455. Principle explained, The Fern Criiz (No. 1), 1884, 9 P. D. 94; 10 App. Cas. 59; The Bernina (No. 2), 1887-88, 12 P. D. 69; sub nom. Mills v. Armstrong, 13 App. Cas. 1.] This was an action on the case for obstructing a highway, by means of which obstruction the plaintiff, who was riding along the road, was thrown down with his horse, and injured, &e. At the trial before Bayley J. at Derby, it appeared that the defendant, for the purpose of making some repairs to his house, which was close by the road side at one end of the town, had put up a pole across this part of the road, a free passage being left by another branch or street inxthe same direction. That the plaintiff left a public house not far distant from the place in question at 8 o'clock in 11 EAST, 61. LORD V. HOUSTON 927 the evening in August, when they were just 'beginning to light candles, but while there Was light enough left to discern the obstruction at 100 yards distance: and the witness, who proved this, said that if the plaintiff had not been riding very hard he might have observed and avoided it: the plaintiff however, who was riding violently, did not observe it, but rode against it, and fell with his horse and was much hurt in consequence of the accident; and there was no evidence of his being intoxicated at the time. On this evidence Bayley J. directed the jury, that if a person riding with reasonable and ordinary care...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei and Another
- Rosita binti Baharom (Budak) v Sabedin bin Salleh
-
Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson, 2004 ABCA 281
...15]. Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769; 284 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 15]. Butterfield v. Forrester (1809), 103 E.R. 926 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote Davies v. Mann (1842), 10 M. & W. 546; 152 E.R. 588 (Ex.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 10]. Phillip......
- Abdul Latif bin Ismail; Lim Kar Bee