Hamid v Singh
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Persad-Maharaj, J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1991 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1991 HC 35 |
| Docket Number | No. 840 of 1980 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 31 January 1991 |
High Court
Persad-Maharaj, J.
No. 840 of 1980
Mr. Edwin Roopnarine for plaintiff.
Mr. Prakash Deonarine for defendant.
Tort - Negligence — Liability — Road traffic accident — Defendant drove out of driveway onto road — Plaintiff's driver failed to drive at a reasonable speed in built-up area and contributed to accident by 1/3 — Judgment against defendant for 2/3 of his claim with respect to liability.
The plaintiff filed his Writ of Summons on the 24th day of June 1980 and claims damages for negligence by the negligent driving of motor vehicle PZ 2128 on the 29th of May 1979 by the defendant along the Moruga Road. Fifth Company Village in the Island of Trinidad.
The Statement of Claim accompanied the plaintiff's Writ of Summons.
-
(a) It is alleged that at all material times and in particular on the 29th May 1979 the plaintiff and the defendant were the registered owners of motor vehicles HAA 3257 and PZ 2128 respectfully,
-
(b) That on the 29th May the plaintiff's vehicle HAA 3257 was being driven along the Moruga Road, Fifth Company, when the defendant his servant and/or agent so negligibly drove and drove and/or managed PZ 2128 out of a driveway without stopping that he collided with the plaintiff's motor vehicle causing extensive damage thereto and loss and expenses to the plaintiff and as a result of the said collision the driver of motor vehicle HAA 3257 lost control of the said vehicle and collided with a pedestrian who eventually died.
-
(a) Drove too fast.
-
(b) Drove from a driveway without stopping.
-
(c) Drove in such a course or in such a manner that he did not or alternatively could not avoid the said collision.
-
(d) Failed to stop and/or to slow down and/or so manoeuvre his said Motor Vehicle and to avoid the said collision.
-
(e) Failed to pay any or any proper heed to other users of the road.
-
(f) The plaintiff will rely on the fact that the collision occurred as herein before stated as being sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant his servant and/or agent.
-
(a) To labour and materials to repair Motor Vehicle HAA 3257 $4,136.70
-
(b) To loss of use for 21 days at $75.00 per day $1,575.00
-
(c) To Depreciation $1,000.00
-
(d) To Certified Copy $2.50
In essence the defendant admits that there was a collision between the plaintiff's and the defendant's vehicles on the date and place stated in the Statement of Claim but denies the allegation of negligence as stated by the plaintiff. Alternatively the defendant says that the collision was caused solely or contributed to by the negligence of the plaintiff his servant and/or agent in the driving and management of motor vehicle HAA 3257.
-
(a) Driving at an excessive and/or improper speed in the circumstances.
-
(b) Driving without any or any proper look out and/or without any consideration for other road users.
-
(c) Failed to stop, slow down, sufficiently or at all press his brakes sufficient or at all or so to steer or so control the said vehicle so as to avoid the said collision with the defendant's said motor vehicle which had come to a halt at the edge of a driveway before its entry to the said main road.
The loss and damage of the plaintiff was not admitted.
There was no reply to the defendant's defence. The words underlined in (c) above was an amendment granted by the court on the application of the defence attorney without any objection by the plaintiff's attorney.
At the beginning of the trial the plaintiff's attorney requested the court to have the trial split and to hear the question of liability alone as the plaintiff's repairer and the evidence of special damages were not available that morning.
The defendant's attorney while not objecting to this course said that he preferred that the evidence of special damages ought to be given at the same time as it was necessary for him to cross-examine as to the damage of the plaintiff's vehicle.
The court perused the learning O 33/4/7 of the White Book 1973.
“An order for separate trials of the issues of liability and damages will only be made if there is a clear line of demarcation between the issues on the pleadings and not where they interact upon each other. Polskie v. Electric Furnace Co. Ltd. [1956] 2 All E.R. 306 CA. Dent v. Sovereign Life Assurance Co. (1879) WR 389.
On the other hand while the issue of liability is separate and distinct from the issue of damages litigants should take advantage of the facilities which are afforded of having the question of liability as a preliminary issue before the issue of damages. Gala v. Patmin and Fotheringham Ltd. [1958] 2 All E.R. 497, 503.”
I have perused the pleadings of the plaintiff that there was a clear line of demarcation between the particulars of negligence pleaded and the special damages claimed. Further the issue of liability was separate and distinct from the issue of damages.
As such the Court proceeded to hear the question of liability alone.
The plaintiff called one witness the driver of the plaintiff's car one Fitzroy Ragbir of Bon Jean Jean Moruga.
Ragbir testified that on the 29th May 1979 at about 11.30 a.m. he was driving the plaintiff's Taxi registration No. HAA 3257 from Princes Town to Moruga and that he was plying for hire.
That at the time he had three passengers in the car. On reaching 5th Company Village, Moruga Road, he was driving at a speed between 20 to 25 MPH. He was travelling from North to South and on his left hand or Eastern side.
That in the vicinity where the accident took place was a straight road, that is to say, a stretch for about 500 to 600 feet in distance.
That when he was about 15 feet away he observed the defendant's vehicle coming cut of a gateway from the Eastern side of the road. At this stage the car was inside the gateway. Ragbir said he mashed his brakes hard and pulled to the right but the defendant's car came on to the road about 5 to 6 feet and collided with the left side of his vehicle. It was the defendant's car which struck his left front fender locking his front wheel. At this point the left front fender of his car hit his wheel which caused it to lock as a result his kept going on the right or Western side of the road. He said the defendant's car came out of the gateway at a speed between 5 to 10 MPH.
He agreed that his car travelled approximately 120 feet after the accident and collided with a pedestrian on the Western side of the road who died as a result of that collision.
Fitzroy agreed that immediately before two trucks were travelling in a Northern direction or in the direction of Princes Town but when the accident occurred with the defendant's vehicle these trucks had already passed the accident area about 2 or 3 seconds before.
Under cross-examination Pagbir said that the defendant's car hit his whole left side of his car. His car was damaged on the left side from the edge of the front fender, the left side front door, the left side back door, the left side back fender and the tail light on the side there. He admitted also that the whole left side of his vehicle had one long scrape. It was a hit and not a scrape he firmly said.
He said the defendant's vehicle was damaged to the front. That is, the front bumper, the entire front was damaged.
Ragbir insisted that the front of the defendant's vehicle collided with his car.
He said the road was 17 feet wide and the point of impact was about 4 to 5 feet from the Eastern edge of the road. After the accident he said he came out of his vehicle and came back to the scene of the accident where the accident occurred. At this time the defendant's car was at a standstill position across the read.
Debris and broken glass was about 5 feet in the read from the Eastern side. He said it was true that the defendant's car was 4 to 5 feet across the road facing West.
He denied he was driving fast. In Examination-in-Chief he said his speed was between 20 to 25 MPH.
Fitzroy said that Corporal Osborne came to the scene of the accident and that he went to the Princes Town Police Station and that his passengers went to the Station also, but he did not know if the defendant went to the Police Station. The defendant also gave in evidence that the Police came on the scene and took measurements.
Ragbir denied that he collided with the defendant's vehicle when the defendant's car was stationary at the Eastern edge of the road, and in so doing scraped the defendant's car at its front.
Ragbir denied that he had to pull to the Eastern edge of the road for the trucks as he was driving on the Eastern side already and the tracks had already gone past the area.
Ragbir in cross-examination held on to his version that when he saw the defendant's car coming out of the driveway and he was about 15 feet away he mashed his brakes and pulled to the right. He also said that “the defendant's vehicle collided with mines before i mashed brakes.”; (Emphasis mine).
Apart from Fitzroy Ragbir the plaintiff called no other evidence. No passenger in the plaintiff's taxi was called and Corporal Osborne, the independent witness, was also...
To continue reading
Request your trial