The plaintiff crossed road at a pelican crossing. The lights were against him but one car had stopped. As he passed that car he was struck by another in the second lane and again by a car coming the other way. The judge had held the three equally responsible. The defendants appealed the calculation of damages.
Held: Apportionment of liability in a case of contributory negligence between plaintiff and defendants must be kept separate from apportionment of contribution between the defendants inter se. The judge should first have set the plaintiff’s level of contribution, and then as a different stage apportioned the liability thus found between the defendants.
Judges:
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
Citations:
[1989] AC 328, [1988] UKHL 5, [1988] 2 All ER 961
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd CA 1949
A plaintiff brought an action for damages for personal injury against the drivers of two cars.
Held: There are two aspects to apportioning responsibility between a plaintiff and defendant in an action for negligence, the respective causative . .
Appeal from – Fitzgerald v Lane CA 6-Mar-1987
The plaintiff was struck by the defendant’s car as he crossed at a pelican crossing and suffered severe injuries when the first defendant’s car passed the stationary of the second defendant. The judge found all three parties negligent.
Held: . .
Not approved – 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 . .
Cited – Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (HLl) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz) and Cobbetts ComC 18-Feb-2009
The claimant had leant money on a property fraudulently overvalued by an employee of the now insolvent first defendant. A contribution order had been agreed by the solicitors. The court heard applications by the claimants and the solicitors against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Damages
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185852