The High Court found no error in the trial magistrate's apportionment of liability, holding that the lower court was entitled to believe the respondent's witnesses who testified that the appellant had been provided with protective gloves but chose not to wear them. The court emphasized that the trial magistrate had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and was entitled to make credibility findings. The evidence supported a finding of substantial contributory negligence by the appellant, justifying the 80:20 apportionment of liability. The appellate court declined to interfere with the lower court's factual findings or the application of legal principles regarding contributory negligence and employer's duty of care.