A car driver drove into the back of a stationary lorry but was nevertheless held only 20% responsible.
Held: A court of appeal should only exceptionally interfere with a judge’s apportinment of responsibility for an accident.
Winn LJ said: ‘When it is necessary for a court to ascribe liability in proportions to more than one person, it is well established that regard must be had not only to causative potency of the acts or omissions of each of the parties, but to their relative blameworthiness.’, and after quoting from the Miraflores, he continued: ‘It is worthy of note, I think, that that being a case where three ships had been involved in a collision, Lord Pearce said that what was essential was to compare the fault of each with the fault of the other two; the emphasis is upon fault not solely with the causation of damage.’
Judges:
Winn LJ
Citations:
[1968] 1 WLR 1003
Statutes:
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – The Miraflores and The Abadesa PC 1967
Two ships had collided. A third itself ran aground trying to avoid them, and its ownes sought damages.
Held: The unit approach to apportionment of damages was wrong.
Lord Morris said of section 1 of the 1911 Act: ‘The section calls for . .
Cited by:
Cited – Eagle v Chambers CA 24-Jul-2003
The claimant was severely injured when run down by the defendant driving his car. She was in Blackpool, and drunk and wandering in the highway. The defendant was himself at or near the drink driving limit. She appealed against a finding that she was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Damages
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185855