Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26

Pennington v Norris [1956] HCA 26

The proper approach to apportionment under the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954 (Tas.) involves comparing the degrees to which each party departed from the reasonable man standard; the defendant’s negligence was much more culpable and the plaintiff’s damages should be reduced by only twenty per cent, not fifty per cent.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: George William Pennington; Respondent/defendant: Roy James Norris
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 1956
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Tasmania
Outcome
appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Damages
Torts Negligence Contributory Negligence Apportionment of 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George William Pennington

Appellant/plaintiff

Roy James Norris

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Tasmania

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the finding of equal contributory negligence was appropriate under s. 4 of the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954 (Tas.)
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment and reduction of damages was just and equitable

Ratio Decidendi

The proper approach to apportionment under the Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954 (Tas.) involves comparing the degrees to which each party departed from the reasonable man standard; the defendant’s negligence was much more culpable and the plaintiff’s damages should be reduced by only twenty per cent, not fifty per cent.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tasmania is varied so that responsibility for the damage is apportioned eighty per cent to the defendant and twenty per cent to the plaintiff.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of £7,342 14s. 5d.