CASE NAME	Davies v Mann
CITATION	152 ER 588
COURT	Court of Exchequer
Bench	Lords Abinger CB, Gurney, and Rolfe BB
Year	1842

INTRODUCTION

Davies v. Mann, a classic tort case, revolves around a deadly collision between a donkey and a wagon on a public highway. Davies, the plaintiff, had hitched his donkey, maybe carelessly, beside the highway. Mann, who was driving his wagon at a “smartish pace,” struck with and killed the donkey. This seemingly simple issue raised a substantial legal challenge about culpability and contributory negligence.

The central issue before the court was whether Mann could be held liable for the donkey’s death, even if Davies’s own actions in tethering the animal contributed to the unfortunate incident. The case explored the boundaries of responsibility when both parties bear some degree of fault, ultimately leading to the development of the “last clear chance” doctrine. This doctrine, born from the donkey’s demise, continues to influence negligence law to this day.   

FACTS

The case of Davies v. Mann arose from a fatal encounter between a donkey and a wagon on a public highway. Davies, the plaintiff, had tethered his donkey along the side of the road, a practice that, while perhaps not ideal, was not explicitly illegal. Mann, the defendant, was driving his wagon down the same road at a “smartish pace,” a description suggesting a speed faster than a leisurely stroll.

Tragically, Mann’s wagon collided with Davies’ donkey, killing the animal. While Davies’ act of anchoring the donkey on the roadside may have contributed to the tragedy, the major question was whether Mann’s speed and conduct were the more proximate cause of the donkey’s death. Mann, although not expressly asserting that the donkey’s appearance on the road was completely unexpected, implied that he was not wholly to blame. Davies, on the other hand, disputed this, claiming that Mann’s “smartish pace” and lack of proper care were the direct causes of the tragic crash.

ISSUES

Can a defendant be held responsible for damages resulting from their negligent actions, even if the plaintiff’s own negligence also contributed to the harm?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES 

1. Arguments by the Petitioner

• Davies, the plaintiff, contended that, even if his act of tethering the donkey on the roadside contributed to the circumstance, Mann’s “smartish pace” and subsequent accident with the animal constituted negligence. He claimed that Mann owed a duty of care to control his wagon and avert such mishaps, regardless of the donkey’s presence.  Essentially, Davies’ case centered on the notion that Mann had the last clear opportunity to prevent the injury.

1. Arguments by the Respondents

• Mann, on the other hand, likely argued that Davies’s own negligence in tethering the donkey on the road was the primary cause of the accident. He may have contended that he was driving at a reasonable speed and that the donkey’s presence on the road created an unavoidable hazard.  His defense would have likely revolved around the concept of contributory negligence, suggesting that Davies’s own actions absolved him, at least partially, of responsibility for the donkey’s death.  The core of Mann’s argument would likely have been that he should not be held solely liable for an accident to which the plaintiff himself contributed.

DECISION

After carefully considering the arguments provided in Davies v. Mann, the court found that Mann was indeed accountable for Davies’ donkey’s death. The court rejected the argument that Davies’s act of harnessing the donkey, while potentially foolish, freed Mann of blame. The court emphasized Mann’s responsibility to control his wagon and drive at a reasonable speed given the circumstances, regardless of the donkey’s presence on the road. The donkey’s careless placement did not negate Mann’s need to use reasonable care to avoid a collision. 

The court ruled that Mann’s failure to do so, specifically driving at a “smartish pace,” which contributed to the fatal impact, constituted negligence that was the proximate cause of the donkey’s death.  The court recognized that even if Davies contributed to the situation, Mann had the “last clear chance” to prevent the accident.  Therefore, the court found Mann liable for the consequences of his negligence. This decision established the principle that contributory negligence does not automatically bar a plaintiff from recovery, particularly when the defendant had the opportunity to avoid the harm.

ANALYSIS

Davies v. Mann examined the complicated interaction between negligence and contributory negligence in the context of road safety. The court’s major concern was whether Mann could be held accountable for Davies’ donkey’s death, despite the fact that Davies’ own conduct in tethering the animal may have contributed to the hazardous condition. The court’s conclusion was based on establishing whether Mann violated his duty of care and whether that breach was the proximate cause of the loss, despite Davies’ apparent contributory negligence.

Davies v. Mann explored the boundaries of responsibility on public roadways. The court grappled with the issue of whether one party’s actions excused the other party’s negligence. Davies v. Mann established the important principle that contributory negligence does not automatically absolve a defendant of liability, especially when the defendant had a clear opportunity to prevent the accident. The case highlights the ongoing tension between individual responsibility and the broader societal duty to exercise reasonable care, particularly in shared spaces like public roads. It underscores the importance of vigilance and careful conduct to prevent accidents, even when the actions of others may contribute to the risk.