Donoghue v Burke and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 17 July 1960
• Date: 17 July 1960

Supreme Court.

Donoghue v. Burke and Another.

CHRISTOPHER DONOGHUE

Plaintiff

and

WILLIAM BURKE and THOMAS SHAUGHNESSY,Defendants (1)

Tort - Joint tortfeasors - Apportionment of liability - Variation of apportionment on appeal - Limitation of jurisdiction - Tortfeasors Act, 1951 (No. 1 of1951), s. 4.

Appeal from the High Court.

The plaintiff, Christopher Donoghue, sued the defendants, William Burke and Thomas Shaughnessy, for damages for personal injuries sustained by him when a motor car in which he was a passenger, which was owned and driven by the first-named defendant, collided with a tractor and trailer owned and driven by the second-named defendant on the night of the 11th November, 1956, in circumstances which appear fully in the judgment of Lavery J., post. The action was tried before Teevan J. and a jury. The jury found in favour of the plaintiff against both defendants and assessed damages at £5,000, and apportioned such damages, pursuant to s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Tortfeasors Act, 1951, as to 25 per cent thereof against the first-named defendant, Burke, and as to 75 per cent thereof against the second-named defendant, Shaughnessy.

The second-named defendant appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court apportioning the damages and costs in accordance with the findings of the jury, and he applied to have such order set aside and such damages and costs apportioned as to the Court might seem fit, or, alternatively, for a new trial of the action in respect of the apportionment of damages and costs between the

defendants. The appellant did not appeal against the amount of the damages or against the jury's finding of negligence against him.

The plaintiff was a passenger in a motor car owned and driven by B.,which, on the night of the 11th November, 1956, collided with a tractor and trailer owned and driven by S. which was being driven along the roadway in front of B.'s car in the same direction and without any tail-light lighting.B. attributed his failure to see the trailer to his being dazzled by the head-lights of an oncoming car. In an action by the plaintiff in the High Court against both B. and S. for damages for personal injuries sustained in the collision, the jury found that both defendants were negligent, and they apportioned the damages, pursuant to s. 4, sub-s. 1, of the Tortfeasors Act, 1951, as to 75 per cent against S. and as to 25 per cent against B. S. appealed to the Supreme Court, solely against the allegedly disproportionate apportionment of the damages between the defendants.

Held by the Supreme Court (Lavery, O'Daly and Maguire JJ.) that, when an appellate tribunal accepts the findings of fact of the Court below and its conclusion that both defendants have been negligent it should, in the absence either of error in law or of gross disproportion having regard to undisputed facts, revise the distribution of blame only in very exceptional cases.

The Court accordingly dismissed S.'s appeal.

British Fame (Owners) v. Macgregor (Owners) [1943] A. C. 197 and Ingramv. United Automobile Services, Ltd. [1943] 2 All E. R. 71 approved.

Cur. adv. vult.

Lavery J. :—

This is an appeal against a verdict and the judgment entered thereon by Mr. Justice Teevan in an action tried by him with a jury, in which the jury awarded the plaintiff £5,000 damages against two defendants. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries when travelling as a passenger in a motor car, owned and driven by the first-named defendant, Burke, which was in a collision with a motor tractor and trailer owned and driven by the second-named defendant and appellant, Shaughnessy, on the public highway at Culliagh South, Ballyglunin, in the County of Galway. The jury, under the Tortfeasors Act, 1951, apportioned the damages...