Jackson v Murray and another

Jackson v Murray and another

The Supreme Court held that the Extra Division erred in attributing the major share of responsibility (70%) to the pursuer when the defender's conduct was at least equally causative and blameworthy. The correct apportionment was 50% responsibility to each party, reflecting both the pursuer’s carelessness and the defender’s failure to reduce speed and keep a proper lookout.

Parties
Appellant: Jackson; Respondents: Murray and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Inner House (scotland)
Outcome
Appeal allowed (by majority)
Legal Topics
Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability, Pedestrian Road Traffic Accident

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson

Appellant

Murray and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Inner House (scotland)

  1. 1 How should responsibility be apportioned in a road traffic accident involving a child pedestrian and a negligent driver?
  2. 2 What principles govern appellate review of apportionment of responsibility under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Extra Division erred in attributing the major share of responsibility (70%) to the pursuer when the defender's conduct was at least equally causative and blameworthy. The correct apportionment was 50% responsibility to each party, reflecting both the pursuer’s carelessness and the defender’s failure to reduce speed and keep a proper lookout.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (by majority)

Orders

  • Award 50% of the agreed damages to the pursuer.