In both the UK and Singapore, the legislation governing contributory negligence provides that in cases where the claimant has been contributorily negligent his damages should be reduced to such extent as the court considers just and equitable given his share in the responsibility for the damage he has sustained. As this is a rather general exhortation, it offers limited practical guidance. More specific assistance is to be found in a number of authorities, the most notable of which is probably Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd, where Lord Reid famously observed that as well as looking at the blameworthiness of both defendant and claimant, it is also necessary, when apportioning responsibility, to consider the relative importance of the claimant's actions. One of the most common situations in which contributory negligence is pleaded successfully is in relation to claims arising from road accidents, and in particular accidents involving pedestrians who are knocked down by drivers. In this context, more specific guidance on apportionment is to be found in decisions such as those of the House of Lords in Baker vWillough by and the English Court of Appeal_x000D_ in Eagle v Chambers, which suggest that, due to the dangers inherent in driving and the disparity in the potential for causing harm between a driver and a pedestrian, a higher burden is likely to be placed on the driver.