Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5

Facts

  • The claimant, a 13-year-old girl, was involved in a road traffic accident after stepping into the road from behind a minibus.
  • The defendant, who was driving a car, struck the claimant and was found to have been driving too fast.
  • The lower court initially assessed the claimant’s contributory negligence at 90%, later reduced to 70% upon appeal.
  • The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, disputing the apportionment and arguing that the claimant bore full responsibility for not checking for traffic before crossing.
  • The Supreme Court had to determine both the existence and appropriate extent of the claimant’s contributory negligence.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant’s actions constituted contributory negligence and, if so, to what extent damages should be apportioned.
  2. How to properly balance the causative potency and blameworthiness of each party’s conduct in apportioning liability.
  3. Whether the lower courts’ assessment of the claimant’s contributory negligence was excessive or outside a reasonable margin of disagreement.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court found that both the claimant and the defendant were negligent and that their actions contributed equally to the accident.
  • The court held that apportionment requires consideration of both the causative potency and relative blameworthiness of each party’s actions.
  • It decided the lower courts had apportioned too great a degree of responsibility to the claimant.
  • The claimant’s contributory negligence was reduced to 50%, finding this reflected an equitable balance given the facts.
  • The court reiterated that appellate interference with apportionment decisions is only justified if the lower court’s assessment is beyond reasonable disagreement.

Legal Principles

  • Contributory negligence involves both the causative potency of the parties’ conduct and their respective blameworthiness.
  • Apportionment of liability is a qualitative, not quantitative, “rough and ready exercise.”
  • Child claimants are assessed against a standard suitable for their age, but as they near adolescence, their responsibility increases.
  • Appellate courts should only intervene in apportionment decisions where there has been an error of law or the decision falls outside reasonable disagreement.
  • The case distinguishes between standards applied to children of different ages (as seen by comparison with Yachuk v Oliver Blais Co Ltd [1949] AC 386).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5 confirmed that contributory negligence apportionment requires a balanced consideration of blame and causation, applying an age-appropriate standard for child claimants and limiting appellate interference to instances of manifest error.

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