Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26

Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26

Although the plaintiff was negligent in failing to look to his left while crossing the road, the trial judge's equal apportionment could not be supported because the defendant's negligence was far more culpable: he drove at not less than thirty miles per hour in a town at night, in misty and wet conditions, with impaired visibility, shortly after hotel closing time and among many people. A just and equitable allocation was twenty per cent responsibility to the plaintiff and eighty per cent to the defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Negligence Action for Personal Injuries / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Tasmania (crisp J.)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment varied to apportion responsibility one-fifth to the plaintiff and four-fifths to the defendant.
Legal Topics
['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'personal Injury Damages']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['contributory Negligence' 'apportionment of Damages' 'motor Vehicle Accident' 'personal Injury Damages']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in Negligence Action for Personal Injuries / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Tasmania (crisp J.)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the finding that the plaintiff was negligent could be supported by the evidence.' "Whether the plaintiff's injuries were the result partly of his own fault within s. 4 of the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954 Tas." "Whether the trial judge's equal apportionment of responsibility between plaintiff and defendant was just and equitable."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff was negligent in failing to look to his left while crossing the road, the trial judge's equal apportionment could not be supported because the defendant's negligence was far more culpable: he drove at not less than thirty miles per hour in a town at night, in misty and wet conditions, with impaired visibility, shortly after hotel closing time and among many people. A just and equitable allocation was twenty per cent responsibility to the plaintiff and eighty per cent to the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment varied to apportion responsibility one-fifth to the plaintiff and four-fifths to the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' "Discharge so much of the order as finds under the provisions of the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954 that the degree of the plaintiff's negligence was one-half and of the defendant's negligence was one-half and that judgment be entered for £4,589 4s. 0d." 'Substitute a...