Apportionment of Damages for Contributory Negligence: Appellate Review, Relative Blameworthiness and Causal Potency
James Goudkamp, 'Apportionment of Damages for Contributory Negligence: Appellate Review, Relative Blameworthiness and Causal Potency' (2015) 19 Edinburgh Law Review pp.367–373.
7 Pages Posted: 26 Feb 2016
Date Written: 2015
Apportioning damages for contributory negligence is bread and butter work of trial courts throughout the United Kingdom. Both contributory negligence and apportionment are very frequently in issue in negligence cases and, when they are, they are often key points in dispute. It is relatively rare, however, for the law in this area to be dealt with at any length on appeal. There are various possible causes of this situation, one of which is the well-established principle that appellate courts should disturb findings of a trial judge in relation to contributory negligence or apportionment only where those findings are clearly wrong. Jackson v Murray is, therefore, an important case. It is the first occasion on which the Supreme Court has engaged with this part of the law other than in passing. The decision casts light on several issues in the law of contributory negligence and apportionment. It also raises some questions.
Keywords: tort, negligence, comparative fault, contributory negligence, appeals, causation, apportionment
JEL Classification: K13
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation