Court: House of Lords
Citation: [1989] 1 AC 328
Date: 1989
Judges: Lord Ackner, Lord Bridge, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff, and Lord Mackay
The case of Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] 1 AC 328 is a landmark decision in the field of personal injury law, particularly regarding the apportionment of damages in cases where multiple defendants are involved, and the claimant’s contributory negligence must be considered.
The case clarifies the approach to apportioning damages in situations where the cause of the injury is uncertain and establishes how contributory negligence and liability should be assessed under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. This case is pivotal in understanding how the law deals with joint tortfeasors and the distribution of responsibility in personal injury cases.
Facts of Fitzgerald v Lane Case
The claimant, Fitzgerald, was crossing a pelican crossing when the pedestrian lights were red. He was struck by the first defendant’s car, causing him to bounce off the bonnet and land in the path of the second defendant’s car, which then struck him. As a result of the two impacts, Fitzgerald sustained severe injuries, including tetraplegia.
However, Fitzgerald was unable to establish whether it was the first or second impact that caused the tetraplegia. Both defendants were found to have been driving too fast and not paying sufficient attention to the road conditions and the pedestrian crossing.
The claimant sued both defendants for negligence, and the trial judge found all three parties — Fitzgerald, the first defendant, and the second defendant — equally at fault for the accident. The trial judge assessed the total damages at £596,553 and ordered both defendants to pay one-third of the total amount, effectively splitting the liability equally among the parties.
The defendants appealed the decision, challenging both the apportionment of damages and the assessment of liability. They argued that if they were to be found equally at fault, the claimant’s damages should have been reduced to 50%. Additionally, the second defendant argued that they were not responsible for the tetraplegia at all.
Fitzgerald v Lane Judgement
The House of Lords made a significant ruling regarding the apportionment of liability and the way in which damages should be assessed in cases involving joint tortfeasors. The ruling in Fitzgerald v Lane set a precedent for future cases involving the division of responsibility in personal injury claims.
- Causation and Liability: The House of Lords held that it was essential to first assess the full damages that the claimant was entitled to, based on the injuries suffered. After determining the total damages, the next step was to assess the degree to which the claimant contributed to their own injuries through contributory negligence. The claimant’s contribution was then subtracted from the total damages.
Importantly, the Lords ruled that a claimant should not be overcompensated simply because there were two defendants involved in the case. This meant that even though the claimant suffered from both defendants’ actions, the total liability for the accident should not exceed the full damages amount. Instead, the court must assess how much responsibility each party bears and adjust the damages accordingly. - Apportionment Between Defendants: The most important aspect of the ruling in Fitzgerald v Lane was the Court’s approach to the apportionment of damages between the two defendants. The House of Lords substituted an apportionment of 50% liability between the two defendants. This decision effectively meant that each defendant would be responsible for half of the damages awarded, rather than each paying one-third, as had been the case in the original trial.
The Lords explained that the apportionment process should not simply rely on an equal division of fault between the claimant and the defendants. Instead, the court must determine the degree of fault for each party, including the claimant, and apply the appropriate deductions based on their respective contributions to the accident.
The decision in Fitzgerald v Lane reinforced the principle that the responsibility of multiple tortfeasors should be assessed independently of the claimant’s contributory negligence, ensuring that the damages are allocated fairly. - Contributory Negligence: The House of Lords reaffirmed the principles established in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The Act allows a court to reduce the claimant’s damages if it is found that they were partly at fault for the incident. However, this reduction should not be based on the joint liability of the defendants. Instead, the court must calculate the total damages first and then assess the plaintiff’s degree of fault, which would lead to a proportional reduction in the damages.
Conclusion
The decision in Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] 1 AC 328 marked a crucial moment in personal injury law by addressing the complex issues of joint tortfeasance, contributory negligence, and the apportionment of damages.
The House of Lords’ ruling provided clarity on how to assess damages in cases where multiple defendants are responsible for the injury, and how to balance the claimant’s contributory negligence with the defendants’ liability.
This case remains an important precedent in personal injury law, and its principles continue to guide courts in cases involving joint tortfeasors and the allocation of responsibility for personal injuries. By setting out clear guidelines for assessing liability and damages, Fitzgerald v Lane has had a lasting impact on how the legal system handles complex injury claims involving multiple parties.
