Dillon (t/a Dillon's Auto Rental and Maxi Taxi Service) v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Charles, J. |
| Judgment Date | 03 October 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2011 HC 281 |
| Docket Number | CV 2528 of 2006 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 03 October 2011 |
High Court
Charles, J.
CV 2528 of 2006
For the claimant: Mr. Martin George
For the defendant: Ms. Dawn Palackdharry Singh
Bailment - Duty of care — Defendant entrusted with claimant's vehicle and expressly forbidden from loaning vehicle to third party — Defendant loaned out car which was destroyed — Defendant as bailee found negligent and ordered to pay claimant for replacing car.
At all material times the defendant was employed by the claimant on a part-time basis as a bus driver. The defendant was engaged by the Tobago Regional Health Authority as an ambulance driver on a full time basis.
Pursuant to his employment aforesaid, the defendant was allowed the use of one of the claimant's vehicles to return home after work on the condition that he brought the vehicle back to the claimant the next morning (“the said arrangement”).
By the terms of the said arrangement, the defendant was expressly forbidden from lending the vehicle to another; it was clearly understood between the parties that the vehicle was intended for the defendant's personal use during the limited period that he had it in his possession.
On 2nd May 2006, the defendant was entrusted with one of the claimant's vehicles, motor vehicle registration number RBW 6955, to go home from work and return to the claimant on 3rd May 2006.
The claimant pleaded that the loan of his vehicle to the defendant amounted to a gratuitous bailment; that pursuant to the relationship of bailor and bailee, the defendant as bailee was duty-bound to exercise care and diligence in the use of said vehicle as men of common prudence usually exercise in their own affairs.
The claimant also pleaded that the defendant breached the terms of said gratuitous bailment when he negligently and in breach of his duty of care to the claimant, lent the vehicle to a third party with whom he shared a relationship. Whilst the vehicle was in the possession of this individual, it was deliberately set afire and destroyed by her husband.
The Particulars of Negligence claimed against the defendant are as follows:
-
i. Failing to take care or adequate care of the bailed goods, namely motor vehicle RBW 6955;
-
ii. Parting with possession and control of the bailed goods and thereby breaching the confidence and trust of the claimant, bailor, and the terms and conditions when the said vehicle was lent to the defendant;
-
iii. Negligently allowing another person to operate and control the said vehicle in a high risk situation;
-
iv. Negligently allowing another person to exercise control and possession of the bailed goods in a tense and highly volatile situation, contrary to the bailment and thereby causing damage to the said bailed goods;
-
v. Failing to keep the said vehicle at all times under the defendant's operation and control;
-
vi. Failing to take any or adequate precaution to ensure that the motor vehicle would be used in a manner and for the purpose for which it was bailed to the defendant as bailee;
-
vii. Failing to notify the claimant as bailor that the motor vehicle was lent to another individual contrary to the intent of bailment; and,
-
viii. Failing to immediately inform the claimant that the said bailed goods were at risk.
Before this incident, the claimant operated a successful business in renting motor vehicles and operating maxi taxis; his business has been seriously hampered by the destruction of the said vehicle, which was a rental vehicle and an integral part of the claimant's rental business.
The claimant thereafter purchased a replacement vehicle on the 27th June, 2006 at the cost of $66,000.00 and made several requests to the defendant for him to repay the sum expended.
As a result of the foregoing, the claimant filed a Claim form on the 25th November, 2009, seeking the following reliefs:
-
i. Damages for loss and damage caused by the defendant's negligence as a gratuitous bailee in failing to take care or adequate care of the claimant's motor vehicle registration number RBW 6955 which was lent to the defendant for his personal use; and,
-
ii. Special damages for the loss and damage in the sum of $97,025.00.
The defendant denied that he was an employee of the claimant; rather the latter engaged his services as a bus driver from time to time. The defendant pleaded that he is in fact employed on a permanent basis as an ambulance operator for the Scarborough Regional Hospital.
The defendant admitted that he was occasionally entrusted with the use of one of the claimant's vehicles to return home. However, he denied that this arrangement was for the purpose of ensuring his punctual attendance at work; it was an informal arrangement between the claimant and the defendant, where the latter was allowed to return to Scarborough using one of the claimant's vehicles. The defendant also denied that the claimant forbade him from allowing any other person to drive or control the motor vehicle while in his care and possession, or from letting the motor vehicle out of his care, control and possession.
The defendant admitted that the claimant lent him the said vehicle to return to Scarborough on the 2nd May, 2006 at around 4:30 p.m. but denied that it was lent under any of the conditions outlined in the Claim. He pleaded that he attended work at the Scarborough Regional Hospital on the afternoon of 2nd May, 2006. Later in the day, on or around 5:48 p.m., he telephoned the claimant in order to ask him if he would consent to the defendant lending the said vehicle to one Natasha George for the purpose of purchasing food for the defendant. The claimant consented to the defendant parting with possession of the said vehicle for this purpose.
The defendant considered Natasha George to be a responsible individual; however, when she did not return to the hospital with the said vehicle as agreed, the defendant tried repeatedly to telephone her but was unable to contact her. He later drove up to her home in search of the vehicle but did not locate same. The following day he continued his efforts to find Natasha but was unsuccessful.
On the 3rd May 2006 Natasha George was found murdered in the said vehicle, which was burnt. After investigations were conducted, the husband of Natasha George was arrested and charged with murder and is currently awaiting trial.
The defendant avers that the destruction of the vehicle by setting it alight was the criminal act of an independent third party. It was this act that was responsible for the loss incurred by the claimant. The criminal act aforesaid was the cause of the destruction of the said vehicle and was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant; it was not reasonably foreseeable that the vehicle would be destroyed by fire as a result of the defendant parting with possession of the said vehicle to Natasha George. In the circumstances, the defendant pleaded that he is not responsible for the loss incurred by the claimant and the claimant is not entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial