Donoghue v Burke and Another
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1960 |
| Date | 17 July 1960 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Apportionment - Variation of apportionment on appeal - Limitation of jurisdiction -Tortfeasors Act; 1951, s. 4.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a motor car owned and drive by B., which 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 headlights 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 (1) of the Tortfeasors Act, 1951, as to 75 per cent against S. and as to 25 per cent against B.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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snell v Haughton
...of his blameworthiness, was not grossly disproportionate in the light of the facts established by the evidence. Donoghue v. BurkeIR [1960] I.R. 314 applied. O'Sullivan v. DwyerIR [1971] I.R. 275 mentioned. 2. That, while it was not ungenerous, the sum of £850 was not grossly disproportiona......
-
O'Leary v O'Connell
...be allowed to stand as it was not grossly disproportionate in the light of the facts established by the evidence. Donoghue v. BurkeIR [1960] I.R. 314 applied. 2. That the amount of the damages awarded was neither grossly excessive nor grossly inadequate. 3. That the plaintiff should not be ......
-
Carroll v Clare County Council
...584. 6 See p. 204, ante. 7 [1971] I.R. 275. 8 (1968) 102 I.L.T.R. 65. 9 [1934] 1 K.B. 319. 10 [1937] I.R. 237, 246. 11 [1952] I.R. 98. 12 [1960] I.R 314. 13 [1966] I.R. 14 [1968] I.R. 149. 15 [1968] I.R. 149 16 [1968] I.R. 47. 17 See p. 222, ante. ...
-
Murphy v Cronin
...greater than that attributed to the plaintiff's husband was a grossly disproportionate apportionment of liability. Donoghue v. BurkeIR [1960] I.R. 314 considered. 2, That the sum payable to the plaintiff from the fund was a "gratuity" and the sum payable therefrom to her husband's personal ......