Charles v Ramnath
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Maharaj, J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 1991 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1991 HC 238 |
| Docket Number | S-2584 of 1987 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 19 December 1991 |
High Court
Maharaj, J.
S-2584 of 1987
Mr. Wendell Kangaloo and Anand Persad Maharaj for the plaintiff.
Mr. H.R.M. Seunath for the defendant.
Tort - Negligence — Liability — Road traffic accident — Deceased found solely liable for the accident and therefore for his injury.
The plaintiff is the wife of the deceased, Peter Charles. On the 15th day of December 1987 she instituted High Court proceedings against the defendant under the Compensation for Injuries Act Chapter 8 No. 5 Trinidad and Tobago for the benefit of the deceased's dependants and by virtue of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for the benefit of the deceased's estate.
Letters of Administration of the estate of the plaintiff's husband were granted to her on the 2nd day of October 1987. This document was admitted into evidence and marked “J.C.5”. The value of the estate was $480.00. Peter Charles (hereinafter called “the deceased”) died on the 18th September 1986 at the on Fernando General Hospital. It was not in dispute during the trial that the deceased met his death as a result of the collision with the defendant's vehicle.
The gist of the plaintiff pleadings was that the deceased was riding his motor cycle Registration No. PAE-540 in an East to west direction along the Union Village, Claxton Bay Road. That the defendant emerged on to the said road without stopping or ensuring that it was safe to do so and when it was dangerous and unsafe so to do.
The particulars of Negligence of the defendant are not out in paragraph 4(a) to (j) respectively in the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
Under particulars pursuant to the Ordinance the persons for whose benefit and who were dependants of the deceased were, as follows:–
1. Jacqueline Charles, the widow of the deceased, aged 28 years, born on the 27th November 1959.
2. Audrey Charles, the Mother of the deceased, aged 62 year.
3. Abiola Charles, daughter of the deceased, aged 5 years, born on the 7th November, 1982.
4. Runako Charles, son of the deceased, aged 2 years, born on the 12th day of March 1985.
The defence admitted the collision on the date and at the place mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, but denied negligence in the defendant or at all. The defence pleaded that the deceased was wholly or partly responsible for the accident. The defendant also relied upon contributory negligence by the deceased. The Particulars of Negligence are set out against the deceased in paragraph 4 of the defence; and in particular (a) to (f) respectively.
The main gist of the defence as I understood it was that at the material time the deceased was riding his motor cycle at an excessive rate of speed. That when the accident occurred the defendant's motor-taxi HAH-1743 was at a stand-still position at the side of the road.
The plaintiff's attorney settled a Reply in the above action. There was the normal joinder on the issue and in addition the plaintiff denied the allegation set out in paragraph 4 of the defendant's defence.
The plaintiff called two witnesses. The first witness was Rudolph John. According to Mr. John he lived at Marabella, Bay Road. He was unable to say the date, the month or the year of the accident save and except that it was a Wednesday. His evidence revealed that he was working on the day of the accident at one Theresa. He was building a fence for her at Malick in Union. On the day of the accident he had left his work about 12.30pm, and he was walking along the road on the right hand side towards the junction in order to get a car. As I understood his evidence, he was walking on the side of the road from which the defendant's vehicle had reversed.
It was drizzling at the time and John was walking in this drizzle. He observed the defendant's vehicle, a 280C cream in colour, reversed from the driveway. As the car reversed it collided with the deceased's motor bike and hit the motor bike towards the wall. The deceased fell in the drain. I gathered from John's evidence that the motor cyclist was travelling in a westerly direction. That is the same direction he John was walking.
According to John, the driver of the car as well as a person who was sitting in the front came out of the car and placed the deceased therein and took him straight to the, Hospital.
John said that the collision took place on the left hand side of the road, I understood this to mean on the southern side thereof. He was about 50 to 60 feet from the accident when it occurred. That is east thereof. John did not assist the deceased to place him in the defendant's car.
He was unable to say the speed of the motor cycle, but according to him, it was not going fast. He was unable to estimate the speed of the cyclist: or the bike.
He had observed the car reversing. The rear of the car was facing east. According to John the defendant's car had reversed on the road about 20 feet. When the car collided with the bike the rider, that is the deceased, fell of the motor cycle in the drain, also the motor bike. The bike however landed up in the road. He did not see any load or anything on the bike. The yard from where the car came was fenced and it had a gate which was open. The fence as concrete wall. The road was in good condition and it was straight road throughout.
Under cross-examination this witness said that Theresa's place was at Macaulay and not at Malick. That he had resided at Bay Road for about 12 to 15 years. He lived six houses away from the end of the road.
It was very surprising (that save and except for one Mrs. Francis) this witness did not know the names of his neighbours who lived close to his or opposite him, or the name of the mechanic who operated a shop at the end of the street. Even with respect to Mrs. Francis who lived on his right, he was unable to say how long she was living there. I was taken back when he said it could be yesterday”.
He did not know the deceased before the accident. In fact he spoke to no one after the accident occurred, he just went about his business. In fact according to John, he was the only person on the road when the accident occurred. I gathered from this evidence that no other pedestrian was on the road when the accident occurred. So far as the plaintiff's case was concerned John was the only eye-see, witness.
It was the following day he went to the home of the deceased's mother, He had no knowledge whatever that the deceased had a wife and children and this he know only on the day he was giving evidence before this Court (12th December 1990). He gave the deceased's mother his name and address. He gave no statement to the police and none interviewed him. Likewise he did not give any evidence at the Inquest. He found it very strange that no police officer spoke to him about the accident.
He said he got a summons to come to court one week before the date of hearing. This could not be as the subpoena addressed to him was dated and filed the 10th December 1990 while he first gave evidence on the 12th December 1990. Although the subpoena was addressed to him at Bay Road, Marabella, it was served on him at Macaulay.
He was questioned about the taxi driver who lived in Bay Road. This witness admitted knowing Mr. Mc Clashie living at Bay Road. He was unable to say if he was a taxi driver. He then said he knew Mr. Mc Clashie yesterday. He then requested the defence attorney to ask him another question.
This witness was unable to say if the deceased sported a Rasta hair style.
I was rather taken aback when he said that he did not know the number of his house in Bay Road and that he could not remember the number of the house where he lived in Bay Road.
When questioned about Theresa's house he said he was sure the house was in Malick. He then changed this to Macaulay. He was sure that Theresa had a house on the land at Macaulay.
He did not know the number of the house. He then changed and said that there was no house on the land.
He was questioned about Theresa's lands in Macaulay. He was unable to say the size of the land or the length of the frontage. He was unable to say whether anything was planted on the land or not. According to this witness the accident occurred between 2.50 to 3.00pm.
Surprisingly he did not finish erecting the fence for Theresa on the Macaulay land and he was paid no money at all for the work.
He resides at Union Village, Claxton Bay. He was a carpenter by profession but at the trial he was a gardener. On the 17th September 1986, Mr. Henry had come from his garden and he was under his house sitting at about 1.00pm. He heard the sound of a motor cycle pass on the road and in a few seconds he heard a bang. The accident occurred at about 1.00pm. pm this point he ran to his gate and he looked towards the west. He observed the defendant's 280C car at an angle on the road and it was facing the sea. He then said that the defendant's car at this point was facing north. He corrected himself and then said west. He then corrected himself again and put the defendant's car facing north, that is the defendant's home.
According to this witness he said the car occupied three-quarters of the road.
He then said in examination in chief that he had seen the defendant's car coming out of his driveway. He then differed from this evidence and said that because of the defendant's wall which was about 5 to 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial