## 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.
