Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] A.C. 328
Facts
On 21st March 1983, C attempted to cross a road along a pelican crossing. Although the traffic lights were green to road traffic and red for civilians, C continued across the road. C passed in front of a stationary car in one line and into the path of D1’s oncoming car. He was struck, thrown onto the bonnet, into the windshield and then forward into the offside of the road. C was then struck by D2’s car, which was travelling in the opposite direction. As a result of both collisions, C sustained multiple injuries and a dislocation of the spine. C was left partially tetraplegic.
Legal Issue
How should the claimant’s contributory negligence be assessed against the two drivers collectively, before determining the drivers’ respective contributions to the damages remaining payable?
Held
Finding for D1 and D2, that C’s damages should be reduced by 50% as C was, to a significant extent, the creator of his own fortune. D1 and D2 would bear the remaining damages in equal proportions since it was unclear which one of them had caused C’s significant injuries. It is unquestioned that whether C is suing one or more Ds for damages for personal injuries, the judge must determine the following factors. Whether C has established liability against one or other or all Ds. Once liability has been established, the total of the damage that C has sustained as a result of established negligence must be assessed. It is only after these two decisions have been made that the next question arises, namely, whether the Ds have established (for the onus is on them) that C, by his own negligence, contributed to the damage which he suffered.
⭐ Legal Principle
Contributory negligence is assessed between the claimant and the responsible defendants collectively before contribution is allocated between defendants. Fitzgerald's equal division between the drivers and 50% claimant reduction were fact-specific, not mandatory percentages for every multiple-impact accident.
Significance
Fitzgerald is particularly useful for keeping two apportionment exercises separate. First identify the defendants' liability and the claimant's total recoverable loss; then reduce that recovery for the claimant's responsibility. Contribution between defendants concerns their respective shares and should not distort the claimant comparison. The case does not establish a universal equal-share rule whenever the precise effect of each impact cannot be isolated. The evidence and applicable contribution principles remain essential.
Common exam questions about this case
Why were two separate apportionment stages necessary?
The claimant's contribution determines how much of the total loss is recoverable from the defendants collectively. The defendants' contribution to each other determines how they share that liability. Combining those exercises can undervalue the claimant's responsibility or otherwise distort the comparison, which was the error Fitzgerald addressed.
Is the 50% reduction a fixed rule for crossing against lights?
No. It reflected the responsibility attributed on these particular facts. Contributory negligence depends on blameworthiness and causal contribution, not a tariff attaching to every traffic violation. A different crossing, driver response or opportunity to avoid the accident may justify a different reduction.
Are drivers always equally responsible when there are two impacts?
No. Fitzgerald's equal division reflected the findings in that litigation. The extent of each driver's negligence and contribution must be assessed under the relevant principles. The presence of two vehicles or difficulty separating injuries does not by itself establish equal liability in every case.