Evelyn v Thomas

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Cenac, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1968
• Neutral Citation: KN 1968 HC 7
• Docket Number: No. 42 of 1968
• Date: 01 January 1968

High Court.

Cenac, J. (Ag.)

No. 42 of 1968

Evelyn

and

Thomas

Appearances:

F. E. Kelsick for the plaintiff

C. F. Henville for the defendant

Negligence - Traffic accident — Liability.

Facts: Whether the defendant was the caused of the accident. Evidence of the plaintiff accepted. Finding that the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the defendant. That the defendant drove on the wrong side of the road. Judgment given for the plaintiff.

Cenac, J.

1 This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant for damages arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's motorcar P 679 (formerly C.N. 679) and the defendant's motor lorry P 811 (formerly C.N. 811). The plaintiff alleged that at about 6.45 p.m. on 27 ^th December 1967 he was driving his motorcar along the public road from the town of Basseterre in this State to the Stonefort Estate of which he was then Manager. According to him, as his motorcar was then approaching the corner immediately east of the Ghaut or Ravine lying between Palmetto Point Village and Clay Villa the defendant's lorry P 811 along the said public road from the opposite direction that it ran into and collided violently with his motorcar causing it severe damage and putting him into loss and expense. He alleged also that the collision took place at time when he brought his motorcar to a standstill as far to his near or left side (namely, the sea side) of the road as it was possible for him to drive it.

2 In his statement of claim, which was delivered to the defendant on 17 ^th July 1970 the plaintiff supplied particulars of the alleged negligence. There, he alleged that the defendant's servant drove the motor lorry too fast, that he failed to negotiate the corner between Palmetto Point Village and Clay Villa on his near side of the road, that he drove on the wrong side of the road, and that he failed to apply brakes sufficiently or on time or to manoeuvre the motor lorry so as to avoid the collision.

3 As to the extent of the damage to the plaintiff's motorcar, he alleged that the front bumper, radiator, right rear front fenders, right front and rear door, bonnet, door hinges and right door post were damaged. He claimed that this damage was repaired at a total cost to him of $1,459.00 that to say $849.00 for the replacement of parts and $565.00 for charges of the repairer, Mr. Richard L. Caines. In addition, he claimed, the sum of $750.00 for depreciation of the value of the motorcar as a result of the collision and the sum of $1,992.00 for expenses of hiring substitute motorcars for 166 days at $12.00 per day. This covers period from 28 ^th December 1967 the day of the collision, to 10 ^th June 1968. Thus the plaintiff's total claim is for a sum of $4,201.00. He purchased the motorcar, he said, in July 1966, for the sum of $5,400. This was not disputed. Consequently, the motorcar was about 17 months old at the time of the collision.

4 The defendant, on the other hand, admitted in his defence that the plaintiff was driving his motorcar on the said road at the relevant time and that his (i.e. the defendant's) servant was then driving motor lorry C.N. 811 on the same road. However, he denied that the collision was caused or occasioned by any negligence on the part of his servant. He alleged that it was cause or contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff. He counterclaimed for damages against the plaintiff. In his counterclaim he alleged that the plaintiff drove his motorcar C.N. 679 so negligently along the public road in the vicinity of the Ghaut or Ravine between Palmetto Point Village and Clay Villa that it collided with his truck and damaged it.

5 According to the particulars which he gave in his counterclaim he stated that the plaintiff was negligent in that he drove too fast failed to keep any proper look out, and “failed to apply his brakes sufficiently or at all to manoeuvre” his motorcar as to avoid hitting his lorry. He did not allege, nor did he prove any special damage.

6 In particular, the defendant also denied that the plaintiff's motorcar was at a standstill when the collision occurred, and also put in issue the plaintiff's claim for damages.

7 At the trial, the plaintiff himself gave evidence and called two witnesses. The first of his witnesses was Mr. Rupert Warner, a Government Public Health Inspector. Mr. Warner stated that he was travelling in his motorcar at some distance behind the plaintiff's motorcar and so was able to witness the events in question. The other witness was Mr. Richard Caines who carries on a garage and motorcar repair business in Basseterre. It was he who had done the repairs to the plaintiff's motorcar after the collision. He also hired a motorcar to the plaintiff, as a substitute, for 161 days out of the 166 days, which it took to effect those repairs.

8 The plaintiff's evidence as to the nature of the road was to this effect. There is an Anglican Church at Palmetto Point. Immediately after that church there is a slight left-hand curve. Then the road goes straight for about a distance of 130 feet. At the end of that stretch of road, there is another left-hand curve. This second curve is a sharp one. If one should fail to negotiate it then one would go into a very deep ghaut.

9 Now, according to the plaintiff, he was travelling on the left side of the road (that is to say, on the sea side of the road) at about 20 miles per hour and had passed the church and was on the straight road. Behind him, about 64 feet away, he could have seen another motorcar travelling in the same direction which turned out to be Mr. Rupert Warner's motorcar. Ahead of hi,, he saw the lights of an approaching vehicle which turned out to be the defendant's lorry driven by Mr. Alton Charles. This lorry, whose light he had first seen about 64 feet away came from around the second curve, and was approaching him “head on” right over on his side of the road. He pulled out as far as he could have gone off the road, dimmer his lights and stopped. When he stopped, the lorry was about 10 feet or 12 feet away from his motorcar. The lorry then came along and its right bumper struck and damaged his motorcar's right fender while the lorry's wooden platform also struck and damaged the right front door and the right rear door, of his motorcar. Travelling in the motorcar with him...