Jackson v Murray
In apportioning damages for contributory negligence, the court must consider both the blameworthiness and the causative potency of each party's conduct, and appellate courts may interfere only if the apportionment is wrong.
Facts
Ms Jackson, aged 13, got off a school minibus on a rural road in Scotland in the dark, and stepped out from behind the bus to cross the road. She was hit by a car driven by Mr Murray, who was driving too fast and had failed to slow down when he saw the bus. The trial judge held that she was 90 per cent to blame, and the Inner House of the Court of Session reduced this to 70 per cent.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that Ms Jackson and Mr Murray were equally to blame, and reduced her responsibility to 50 per cent. Lord Reed said that the court must consider both the blameworthiness of each party's conduct and the causative potency of that conduct, that is, the extent to which it contributed to the damage. A car is potentially a dangerous weapon, and Mr Murray's failure to drive at a safe speed was at least as blameworthy as her failure to take care, given her age. The Inner House had been wrong, because its apportionment was not one that a court could reasonably make.
Related cases on defences and damages
- Baker v TE Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 1 WLR 966
- Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
- Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286
- Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 1 AC 1339
- H West & Son Ltd v Shephard [1964] AC 326
- Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146
- Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, [2021] AC 563
- Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965] AC 656
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
