## Facts

- Lane, a 64-year-old retired gardener, lived next to Holloway, a 23-year-old café proprietor; relations were hostile due to late-night noise and antisocial conduct by customers.
- On 21 July 1966, Lane was outside his home speaking to a neighbor when Holloway’s wife shouted an insult; Lane responded with abusive language toward her.
- Holloway came out in a threatening manner; believing he was about to be struck, Lane hit Holloway first with a relatively slight blow to the shoulder.
- Holloway then punched Lane in the eye with great force, causing severe injury requiring stitches, hospitalization, two operations, and aggravation of pre-existing glaucoma.
- Lane sued for assault and battery; Holloway had also been criminally convicted of unlawful wounding arising from the incident.
- The trial judge found Holloway liable and assessed damages at £300, but reduced them to £75 due to Lane’s provocation and first blow.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant may recover in tort for assault and battery arising from an unlawful fight where the claimant provoked the encounter and struck first.
2. Whether provocation can reduce compensatory damages awarded for physical injury caused by an assault.
3. Whether *ex turpi causa*, *volenti non fit injuria*, or contributory negligence can bar or reduce recovery on these facts.

## Decision

- Lane’s appeal was allowed; Holloway’s cross-appeal was dismissed.
- The Court of Appeal held Holloway liable in assault and battery despite any unlawfulness in the fight because the punch was a “savage” blow out of all proportion to the occasion.
- The court restored the full £300 damages award, holding the trial judge erred in reducing compensatory damages due to provocation.
- The court rejected *ex turpi causa*, *volenti*, and contributory negligence as bases to bar or reduce compensatory damages on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- In an ordinary consensual fist fight, participants may be treated as accepting the risk of incidental injuries (*volenti*), but they do not consent to a weapon or a “savage” blow disproportionate to the occasion.
- Illegality (*ex turpi causa*) does not automatically bar a civil claim for assault and battery arising from a fight; disproportionate violence remains actionable.
- Provocation by the claimant cannot reduce compensatory damages for physical injury; it is relevant, if at all, to exemplary or aggravated damages.
- Contributory negligence is generally inapt for intentional assaults of this kind; the analysis centers on consent and whether the force used exceeded what could be contemplated.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal held that a claimant who provokes a fight and strikes first may still recover full compensatory damages for serious injuries where the defendant responds with a savage and disproportionate blow, and defenses based on illegality, consent, or contributory negligence do not justify reducing compensation for bodily harm.


Lane v. Holloway, 3 All E.R. 129 (C.A. 1967)