Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328

Facts

  • The plaintiff, referred to as C, was crossing a road when the traffic signal was green for vehicles.
  • C was struck first by the vehicle of defendant D1 and then immediately after by D2.
  • At trial, the judge determined that all three parties (C, D1, and D2) were equally at fault.
  • Each defendant was held jointly liable for two-thirds of the damages, with provision for a 50% contribution claim between defendants under Section 2 of the Civil Contribution Act 1978.
  • The House of Lords overturned the trial judge’s ruling, citing misdirection in treating fault as a tripartite issue.

Issues

  1. How should damages be apportioned in negligence cases involving multiple defendants where the plaintiff has also contributed to their own injury?
  2. Should the responsibilities of the plaintiff and the defendants be considered together or through a separate process?
  3. How does the Civil Contribution Act 1978 affect the contribution rights among defendants after apportionment for contributory negligence?

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that damages should first be reduced based on the plaintiff’s contributory negligence before determining the division of liability between defendants.
  • The plaintiff’s damages were reduced by 50% due to substantial responsibility for their own injury.
  • The remaining damages were to be apportioned equally between the two defendants, each being liable for 25% of the original award.
  • Each defendant retained the right to seek a 50% contribution from the other for their share of liability under the Civil Contribution Act 1978.
  • The court clarified that defendants' contributions inter se must be assessed independently of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

Legal Principles

  • A two-stage approach governs the apportionment of damages: first, assessing and applying a reduction for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence; second, apportioning the remaining damages between the defendants based on their relative responsibility.
  • The assessment of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is made with reference to the collective responsibility of all defendants.
  • The division of liability between defendants is conducted independently of the plaintiff’s contributory fault.
  • The Civil Contribution Act 1978 entitles defendants to seek equitable contribution from each other regardless of any reduction for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
  • This methodology ensures that damages are allocated fairly, reflecting both the plaintiff’s and defendants’ actual contributions to the injury.

Conclusion

Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328 confirmed a structured two-stage process for apportioning damages in multi-defendant negligence cases: first, adjusting for the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, and then equitably dividing liability among the defendants, each retaining contribution rights under statute.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal