This document discusses the law of torts and the defense of contributory negligence. It defines negligence as a failure to take reasonable care and explains that contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff's own lack of care contributes to the harm caused by the defendant's negligence. The landmark 1809 case Butterfield v. Forrester established that a plaintiff who fails to exercise reasonable caution and contributes to their own injury cannot recover damages. The defense of contributory negligence means any claim for damages is precluded if the plaintiff is also found negligent, no matter how minor their role in the accident.

1. Contributory
Negligence
- Law of Torts
- Pulkit Choudhary

2. The Nature Of Torts
o A tort is a civil wrong.
o The law of torts deals with the rights and obligations people
owe to others and the infringement of these rights and
obligations.
o The purpose of the law of torts is to provide compensation or
damages to the people whose rights have been infringed.

3. Law Of Torts
Torts are separated into categories and include :
o Negligence
o Defamation
o Nuisance
o Trespass

4. Negligence
o Negligence is defined as a failure to take reasonable care.
o A person is obliged to take reasonable care in regard to other
people, where it is reasonably foreseeable that the other
people could be harmed by their actions or omissions.
When bringing an action for negligence it must be proved that:
o The person who was negligent owed a duty of care to the
person injured,
o The duty of care was breached and
o The breach of duty of care caused harm.

5. Defences To Negligence
There are 2 defences to negligence:
o Contributory Negligence
o Voluntary assumption of risk

6. Contributory Negligence
o Contributory negligence in common-law jurisdictions is mostly
a defence to a claim based on negligence.
o When the plaintiff by his own want of care contributes to the
damage caused by the negligence or wrongful conduct of the
defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory
negligence.
o This is a defence in which the defendant has to prove that the
plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own safety and
that was a contributing factor to the harm ultimately suffered
by the plaintiff.
o Relevant Case Law:
Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)
Harris vs Toronto Transit Commission (1968)

7. Butterfield v. Forrester (1809)
o In this instance, the defendant, Forrester, lived in close vicinity of the road. In the
Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) course of fixing the house, he blocked the
road by placing a pole in the way, which was an obstruction. Around 8 o'clock in
the evening, while travelling at an excessive speed, the plaintiff, Butterfield,
struck the obstruction and was knocked off his horse. Forrester was sued by
Butterfield for damages.
Although it was noted that Butterfield was not intoxicated when riding, a witness
was able to establish that the accident might have been prevented had the
plaintiff been travelling at a reasonable speed. Whether the defendant should be
held liable for a negligent act if the plaintiff could have prevented the damage by
using ordinary care was the question before the jury.
The Kings Bench Court decided in Forrester's favour and dismissed the case after
hearing an appeal. The Court came to the conclusion that a plaintiff who failed
to exercise reasonable caution and caused the accident would not be
compensated. Owing to the defence of contributory negligence, any claim for
damages, no matter how minor the plaintiff's part in the accident, was totally
precluded. Therefore, the defendant would be found not guilty if a successful
claim of contributory negligence was made in a scenario where there was
negligence on the side of both opposing parties.