Fox v. Town of Glastenbury

Supreme Court of Connecticut
29 Conn. 204 (1860)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff is barred from recovering damages for an injury caused by a defendant's negligence if the plaintiff's own culpable imprudence and lack of ordinary care was a substantial contributing factor to the injury.

Facts:

The Town of Glastenbury maintained a causeway across a cove that was approximately 25 rods long and raised about two feet above the ordinary water level.
On August 6, 1856, a freshet caused the river to rise, completely submerging the causeway under a swift, turbid current of water.
The decedent and her companion, Olarinda Fox, approached the causeway in a horse-drawn wagon and observed that it was flooded.
They spoke with a neighbor, Mrs. French, who told them she would be afraid to cross. Despite this, the decedent chose to proceed, remarking that her horse was gentle.
They successfully drove onto the first part of the submerged causeway and reached a bridge in the middle, where they were safe.
On the bridge, they stopped, noted the increasing height and rapidity of the water on the other side, felt alarmed, but made the conscious decision to continue forward.
After driving off the bridge into the deeper, faster water, their horse stopped, but they urged it forward with a whip.
Shortly thereafter, the wagon went off the side of the unmarked, submerged causeway into deep water, resulting in the decedent's death.

Procedural Posture:

The administrator for the decedent's estate sued the Town of Glastenbury in the trial court for negligence.
A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant, the Town of Glastenbury, filed a motion for a new trial with the state's highest court, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a person's decision to knowingly proceed across a visibly flooded and dangerous causeway, despite clear warnings and available safer alternatives, constitute contributory negligence that bars recovery from the town for its failure to maintain the causeway safely?

Opinions:

Majority - Sanford, J.

Yes. A person's decision to knowingly proceed across a visibly flooded and dangerous causeway constitutes contributory negligence, barring recovery from the town. The court found that while the town was culpably negligent for failing to protect the causeway with a railing, the decedent's own actions were the primary cause of the tragedy. The court reasoned that she acted with 'culpable imprudence and indiscretion' by choosing to enter the dangerous, flooded causeway when she was in a position of safety and could have easily avoided the risk. She was aware of the danger, having observed the high water and been warned by a neighbor. Her decision to proceed after reaching the safety of the bridge, in full view of the increased peril, demonstrated a failure to exercise ordinary prudence. Citing Butterfield v. Forrester, the court affirmed the 'stern unbending rule' that a plaintiff must affirmatively prove not only the defendant's negligence but also their own exercise of ordinary care to be entitled to damages.

Analysis:

This case is a classic application of the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, which operates as a complete bar to recovery for the plaintiff. The court's decision highlights the harsh, 'all-or-nothing' nature of this rule, where any fault on the plaintiff's part, regardless of how small in comparison to the defendant's fault, prevents them from receiving any compensation. The ruling reinforces the objective standard of the 'person of ordinary prudence' and underscores that voluntarily assuming a known and obvious risk is a key element in establishing a plaintiff's own negligence. This doctrine has since been largely abandoned by most U.S. jurisdictions in favor of comparative negligence, which apportions fault and damages between the parties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fox v. Town of Glastenbury (1860)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature