Woods v Archibald et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Hylton, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1992
• Neutral Citation: KN 1992 HC 2
• Docket Number: 135 of 1991
• Date: 19 November 1992

High Court

Hylton, J.

135 of 1991

Woods

and

Archibald et al

Appearances:

Mr. L. Grant of Veira & Grant for the Plaintiff.

Messrs. Ferdinand & Kelsick or Kelsick Wilson and Ferdinand for first and second Defendants.

Cases referred to in Addresses:

1. Parkinson v. Liverpool Corpn. [1950] 1 All E.R. 367.

2. Russell v. Van Galen [1985] 36 W.L.R. 144.

3. Richley v. Faull [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1454.

4. Rambarran v. Gurrucharran [1970] 1 All E.R. 749.

5. Hewitt v. Bonvin [1939] T.L.R. 43.

Tort - Negligence — Motor vehicle accident — Whether first defendant was agent or servant of second defendant — Whether defendant negligent — Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

Hylton, J.

THE BACKGROUND

1 The plaintiff's claim against the first and second defendants arises out of an accident which occurred along the Frigate Bay to Basseterre Road in the Island of Saint Christopher on 17th November, 1990 between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 p.m.

2 The plaintiff alleges that the accident cawed total damage to Car P3122 which he had bought on 20th August, 1990 from Mr. Ezekiel Sutton by paying Mr. Sutton $3,000 and taking oven Sutton's loan at the Bank of Nova Scotia whereby he the plaintiff would pay a total of $15,000.00 for the said car.

3 The plaintiff claims against the first and second defendants because he alleges that at the material time the first defendant was the servant or agent of his father the second defendant.

THE EVIDENCE

4 The evidence of the plaintiff is that at or about 10:30 p.m. the 17th November, 1990 he was driving P3122 in a westerly direction from Frigate Bay to Basseterre driving on his left or correct side of the road at about 20 mph when on negotiating a curve in the Earles Morres area he saw the lights of a vehicle approaching very fast. He estimated his distance from the lights on first seeing them at 50 feet away but pointed out a distance agreed by Counsel on both sides to be approximately 50 yards. The lights of the car were swaying or swagging left to right and there was also another car travelling in the same direction and behind the swaying on swagging car. The plaintiff's evidence is further that he took his foot off the gas, that the swaying or swagging car was travelling at 45–50 mph –sliding towards his car and the car that was travelling behind the swaying or swagging car “passed” on the left thereof and continued straight whereafter the swaying or swagging car collided with his the plaintiff's car on the plaintiff's left or correct side of the road causing the plaintiff's said car to come to rest in a drain off it's left or correct side of the road facing south. The plaintiff's evidence continues that his car having come to rest he tried to open his door but it was jammed. Then the first defendant Franz Archibald came “and was trying to help me out through my door too. He was there saying he was sorry then he ran around other end of car. He opened door and helped my girlfriend out. Her name is Annette Ferdinand. She was occupant of my car. He was also telling her he is sorry and so”. The plaintiff's evidence is further that after the impact he discovered that the car that collided with his car and which it is agreed was driven by the first defendant “was facing back to Town (Basseterre)” and this car was on the southern on left side of the roadway as one travels from Frigate Bay to Basseterre. Miss Annette Ferdinand the plaintiff's girlfriend and passenger corroborated the plaintiff in some respects, she received injuries in the crash and asserts that after the collision the windscreen of the plaintiff's car burst in her face and the did not see anything else. She asserts however that the first defendant assisted her in getting out of P3122 and said to her “I am sorry what happen to you”.

5 The third witness Constable Dale Hughes visited the scene after a report was made by the first defendant (the plaintiff and Miss Ferdinand in the meantime having gone to the hospital). Constable Hughes took the first defendant to locate the second defendant before going to the scene.

6 The car driven by the front defendant was R1369 and the Constable asserts that upon seeing both cars he enquired and was told by the first defendant that P3122 and R1369 were involved in an accident and that he was driven of R1369. Later the plaintiff returned to the scene and identified himself as driver of P3122.

7 Constable Hughes recorded a number of measurements with the assistance of the drivers, he said, and he also recorded the explanation given to him by the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident. On the scene the Constable asked the first defendant for an explanation but he said he was in no condition to give an explanation and his father the second defendant on whom he was leaning agreed.

8 The positions of the cars as seen by the Constable were as related by the plaintiff and not disputed by the first defendant. The measurements taken after the Point of Impact was agreed by both plaintiff and first defendant...