Pennington v Norris

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, George William Pennington, had sued the respondent, Roy James Norris, for damages for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by the respondent's motor vehicle. The trial judge found that both parties were negligent and apportioned responsibility equally, reducing the appellant's damages by 50%. The appellant appealed this apportionment, arguing he was not at fault or was less at fault than found.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in finding the appellant contributorily negligent, and if so, whether the apportionment of fault at 50% to each party was just and equitable under the *Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act 1954* (Tas.). Specifically, the court had to consider the basis for apportioning fault under the Act, which requires regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.

The High Court reasoned that while there was evidence to support a finding of contributory negligence against the appellant for failing to keep a proper lookout, the trial judge's equal apportionment of blame was not justified. The court emphasised that apportionment under the Act involves a comparison of the degree to which each party's conduct diverged from the standard of a reasonable person. The court found the respondent's conduct, including his speed of approximately 30 miles per hour on a misty, wet night with significant pedestrian traffic near hotels that had recently closed, to be a far more culpable departure from the standard of care than the appellant's failure to look.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, varying the Supreme Court's order. The court substituted a finding that the respondent bore 80% of the responsibility for the damage and the appellant bore 20%. The judgment was varied to reflect this apportionment, resulting in a judgment for the appellant for £7,342 14s. 5d.