The case of Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5 is a significant Supreme Court of the United Kingdom decision concerning contributory negligence in a road traffic accident involving a child pedestrian. It addresses the complex question of how damages should be apportioned when both claimant and defendant share responsibility, with particular focus on the claimant’s age, the circumstances of the accident, and the culpability of the driver. The case has since become an important authority on balancing causation and blameworthiness in contributory negligence assessments.
Facts of Jackson v Murray
On 12 January 2004, Lesley Jackson, a 13-year-old schoolgirl, alighted from a clearly marked school minibus and attempted to cross a rural two-way road behind the bus. The road was relatively major with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. It was after sunset, and visibility was poor. There was no street lighting on the road, and the only illumination came from the headlights of vehicles.
As Lesley Jackson crossed the westbound carriageway, she was struck by a car driven by Mr Murray. The impact projected her over the roof of the vehicle, and she landed behind it. Mr Murray estimated that he was travelling at approximately 50 miles per hour. He admitted that upon seeing the stationary minibus, he did not reduce his speed. Furthermore, he stated that he did not expect any children to cross the road at that moment and that he did not see Lesley until the moment of impact.
Lower Court Decisions in Jackson v Murray
First Instance
At the initial hearing, the judge found Mr Murray liable for the accident but considered Lesley Jackson to be primarily responsible for her injuries due to her failure to exercise proper care when crossing the road. The judge regarded her decision to cross without sufficiently checking that the road was clear as reckless. Consequently, the judge apportioned damages on the basis of 90% contributory negligence against Lesley Jackson, significantly reducing the compensation she could claim.
Appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session
Lesley Jackson appealed against this ruling. The Inner House of the Court of Session, a panel of three judges, reviewed the matter and reduced the contributory negligence to 70%. The court held that the first-instance judge had not given sufficient weight to Lesley Jackson’s age. Being only 13 years old, her judgement and capacity for self-control were less developed than an adult’s. The appeal court emphasised that greater consideration should have been given to the driver’s responsibility, particularly his failure to reduce speed and maintain a proper lookout.
Supreme Court Judgement in Jackson v Murray
The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, where a panel of five judges heard the final appeal. The Supreme Court further reduced Lesley Jackson’s contributory negligence to 50%. It held that the driver, Mr Murray, bore substantial responsibility for the accident.
Legal Issues
The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court in Jackson v Murray concerned the appropriate apportionment of damages in contributory negligence. The court had to decide the extent to which Lesley Jackson’s damages should be reduced, considering:
- Her age and capacity for judgement as a 13-year-old child,
- The hazardous conditions under which the accident occurred (poor lighting and no streetlights),
- The conduct of the driver in failing to slow down and adequately observe the road conditions.
The case also considered the broader principle of how courts should balance blameworthiness and causation when deciding the apportionment of damages.
Ratio Decidendi
In Jackson v Murray, the Supreme Court emphasised that the assessment of contributory negligence requires a two-fold analysis: the causative potency of each party’s conduct and the blameworthiness attached to their behaviour. This approach draws upon earlier case law, including Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467, where Lord Reid noted that causation and blameworthiness are distinct elements that courts must weigh separately.
Lord Reed, delivering the leading judgement, reiterated that these elements do not necessarily coincide, and the apportionment should reflect both factors fairly and equitably.
Applying these principles to the facts of Jackson v Murray, the court found that:
- While Lesley Jackson was the immediate cause of the accident by stepping into the road, Mr Murray’s failure to slow and anticipate children crossing played an equally significant role.
- The court acknowledged that a 13-year-old child does not possess the same judgement and self-control as an adult, particularly in assessing the speed of an approaching vehicle in poor visibility.
- The circumstances—crossing a 60 mph road at dusk without street lighting—made the crossing inherently dangerous, even for an adult pedestrian.
Accordingly, the court concluded that Lesley Jackson and Mr Murray were equally blameworthy and that the damages should be apportioned 50% to each party.
Key Observations from the Judgement in Jackson v Murray
- Age and Capacity: The court recognised the developmental limitations of a 13-year-old. Children cannot be expected to display the same foresight and caution as adults. The court stressed that the law must take into account the claimant’s age in assessing contributory negligence.
- Road Conditions and Visibility: The accident occurred after sunset on a relatively major road with a high speed limit and without street lighting. This significantly increased the difficulty of safely crossing, even for an adult pedestrian.
- Driver’s Conduct: Mr Murray’s failure to slow after seeing the stationary bus and his failure to keep an adequate lookout were significant contributory factors. The court noted that the driver was at least as responsible as the pedestrian, given the “destructive disparity” between a vehicle and a person, as reflected in earlier authorities such as Eagle v Chambers [2003] EWCA Civ 1107.
- Assessment of Apportionment: The court acknowledged that the apportionment exercise is inevitably a “rough and ready” one, often requiring the court to balance competing factors to arrive at what is “just and equitable.” Different courts may reasonably reach different conclusions, but the Supreme Court found the previous apportionments (90% and 70%) to be unreasonable in the circumstances.
Conclusion
In Jackson v Murray, the Supreme Court carefully balanced the competing interests of a young pedestrian and a driver in a hazardous situation. It corrected the earlier courts’ disproportionate allocation of blame, reducing Lesley Jackson’s contributory negligence to 50% and recognising the driver’s substantial culpability.
The case is frequently cited for its principled approach to contributory negligence, particularly for vulnerable claimants such as children. It emphasises that blameworthiness and causation must be weighed carefully, and that equitable outcomes require nuanced assessments sensitive to all the facts.