Mano v Dwarika
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Maharaj, J. |
| Judgment Date | 24 March 1996 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1996 HC 73 |
| Docket Number | No. S 899 of 1987 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 24 March 1996 |
High Court
Maharaj, J.
No. S 899 of 1987
For the plaintiff Mr. A.R.M. Seunath.
For the defendant Mr. Prem Persad Makaraj.
Cases cited by the plaintiff's attorney:
From the lawyer, January, 1995:
Page 65 — Clarke v. British Petroleum (Trinidad) ltd — S-972/70;
\Page 65 — Bentley v. A.G. 2532/72;
Page 64 — Soham v. Hackett H.C.A. No. 513/78;
Page 62 — Trinidad Transport Enterprises Ltd. v. layne C.A. 10/71
Page 65 — Mohammed v. Kissoon No.991/74
Cases cited by the defendant's attorney:
James v. Grant vol 16 (1955–56) Trinidad Law Reports at p. 34;
Uric Blackie v. Roopmarine Ramphal H.C.A. No. 1539/83 given by Master R. Doyle;
From The Lawyer — January, 1995:
Anderson v. St. George County Council H.C.A. No. 573/70 at p. 66;
Bentley v. A.G . above at p. 65;
Mohammed v. Maharaj H.C.A. No. 1262/77 p.65.
Damages - Personal injury — Quantum — Special damages pleaded specifically and awarded to plaintiff in the sum of $7,700.00 — Damages for personal injuries also awarded — Cornilliac v. St. Louis 7 WIR 491 considered — General damages of 25,000.00 awarded.
The plaintiff on the 20th day of January, 1987 was driving his Cortina 1600 taxi car No. HAL-1531 in an east to west direction along the Tabaquite Rio Claro Road. He was alone in his taxi. His speed was about 20 to 30 miles per hour. ccording to the plaintiff, he observed a big truck coming in the opposite or eastern direction in the centre of the road. This opposite truck was about 100 to 150 feet away from him. At the plaintiff's rear was the defendant's truck No. TAE-839. The defendant's truck was about 50 to 60 feet at the rear of the plaintiff's car.
The plaintiff gave a slowing down or stopping signal with his hand and pulled more to the left side of the roadway and came to a stop. When the plaintiff gave the signal, as he says, at that point the defendant's truck was travelling at the rear of the plaintiff's car. Within a second or two after stopping, the defendant's truck, driven by his servant or agent one Lincoln Mohammed, collided with the rear of the plaintiff's taxi and pushed the tax off the road into a ditch on the southern side thereof. As a result of the collision the plaintiff suffered injuries to his left shoulder and back.
In essence, the defendant's driver's version does not coincide with that of the plaintiff's. Lincoln Mohommed's version was that the taxi overtook him and then came to a sudden stop in front of the defendant's truck without giving any signal whatsoever. TAE-839 was then about 50 feet further east. That the truck travelling in the opposite direction was about to pass the taxi. As such he tried to prevent the collision, firstly by veering a little to the right, but in such a circumstance he would have collided head-on with the oncoming truck if he had continued. Mohommed said that he had to keep to the left but was unable to avoid colliding with the rear of the taxi although he mashed his brakes. The opposite truck did not stop, but went along its way.
The issues which this court is called upon to decide are:
- the plaintiff's taxi car overtake the defendant's truck and then stop suddenly in front of it as Mr. Mohommed testified? Did the plaintiff put the defendant's driver in jeopardy? 2. was there sufficient space or room between the defendant's truck and the parked or stationary taxi so as to avoid the collision? 3. as the opposite truck about to pass the taxi a little before the accident occurred? 4. did the accident occur how the plaintiff said it happened? 5. Why did the defendant's driver not see the opposite truck long before the collision took place?
It was agreed as follows:–
-
(c) That the Tabaquite/Rio Claro Road is a straight piece of road and particularly so where the accident occurred.
-
(d) That from the point of impact the road was straight for about 200 to 300 feet as one travels westwards and also straight for about 100 to 200 feet as one travels eastwards. That the collision occurred on the left or southern side of the road.
-
(e) That the area where the accident occurred has no residents or, houses or business places.
-
(f) That the area is a lonely place with bushes off both sides of the roadway.
-
(g) That on both sides of the roadway there are grass verges each about three feet wide.
-
(h) That the Tabaquite/Rio Claro Road runs from east, that is, from Rio Claro to west, that is, to Guaracara.
-
(i) That the driver of TAE-839 had made his first load from Batchasingh's Quarry at Guaracara and transported boulders to Mayaro and was on his way back with an empty truck to pick up his second load. That Mr. Mohommed was alone in the truck. That the plaintiff was alone in the taxi.
-
(j) That TAE-839 was a Nissan Dump Truck and was able to carry 7 tons.
-
(k) That the accident occurred about 10.00 a.m. that morning.
-
(l) That the plaintiff had bought the Cortina car new brand in the year 1983.
-
(m) That after the accident occurred the truck stopped at the point where the impact took place.
-
(n) That there was a truck in the vicinity travelling in the direction of Rio Claro before the accident took place
-
(o) That the plaintiff and the defendant's driver reported the accident to the Rio Claro Police Station and no police officer visited the locus in quo.
-
(p) That the defendant's driver was at the Rio Claro Health Centre with the plaintiff when he received medical attention at that centre.
-
(q) That the truck travelling in the opposite direction did not stop but went along its way.
- Whether the truck coming in the opposite direction was a big rig truck or a water truck. 2. Whether the opposite travelling truck had passed before the accident or was about to pass or overtake the taxi before the accident. 3. Did the plaintiff's taxi overtake the defendant's truck and stop suddenly in front of it? 4. Did the plaintiff's taxi put the defendant's driver in jeopardy? 5. Did the plaintiff give any hand signal before stopping as the plaintiff says? 6. Was the plaintiff's rear brakes lights working so as to warn the defendant's driver that he was coming to a stop? 7. Did the defendant's truck cause the taxi to go off the road on the southern side and into a ditch about 20 feet from the roadway? Were both vehicles on the roadway after the accident? 8. Was the roadway 15 feet wide as the plaintiff says or was it 20 feet? 9. Did the defendants driver take the plaintiff to the Rio Claro Police Station in truck No. TAE-839 and to the Health Centro as the taxi was unable to be driven from the scene? Or did the plaintiff drive the taxi after the collision to the Rio Claro Police Station as the defendant's driver says? 10. Did Mr. See-Choo's wrecker remove the taxi from the scene on the afternoon of the accident because it could not be driven? 11. Was the roadway in a wet condition when the collision occurred? 12. Was the plaintiff's taxi travelling at a speed of about 45 to 50 miles per hour just before it came to a standstill or was it travelling at 20 to 30 miles per hour as the plaintiff says? 13. Was the defendant's truck travelling at a speed of 40 miles per hour immediately before the accident occurred? 14. (i) Did the defendant's driver say to the plaintiff after the accident — “I did not observe the car stopped and I am sorry” as the plaintiff alleges? or (ii) Did the defendant's driver and the plaintiff after the accident speak the following words as the defendant's driver says: Mr. Mohommed — “Why you stop for, look what happen” Mr. Mano — “What are you going to do?” Mr. Mohommed — “This is a fella vehicle so I have to make a report to the station.”
The driver of the truck travelling to Rio Claro was not called. It appears that the parties did not know the number of this vehicle or the driver thereof.
Apart from the plaintiff and the defendant's driver, there was no other person who gave evidence or to say how the collision occurred.
This being a civil case, it was the duty of this court to come to a finding of fact, on the balance of probabilities, and on the evidence in order to determine how the accident occurred. See Bray v. Palmer [1953] 2 All E.R. 1449.
No negligence was alleged by the defendant's driver that the third party (i.e. the opposite truck driver) was in any way wholly responsible for the accident or that the opposite truck was occupying the centre of the roadway just before the accident occurred or at the time when it happened. In essence, the defendant's driver was saying that this opposite truck was occupying on its correct side of the road, and on its left or northern side thereof. What Mr. Lincoln Mohommed was saying, was that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the collision. That he overtook TAE-839 at a time when it was unsafe so to do. That the taxi then had to stop suddenly because possibly the opposite truck was then too close and possibly, if the taxi did not stop, as it then did, there may have been a collision with the taxi and the opposite truck. See Mc Call v. Ogiste 9 W.I.R. pp. 291–293., This is the inference I draw from the evidence of Mr. Mohommed and the reason why the taxi stopped so suddenly and about 50 feet west of the defendant's truck. See J. v. J. [1955] 2 All E.R. 617; Syne v. The Bank of Nova Scotia H.C.A., No. 976/83 given by Brooks J., on the 3rd July, 1983; Caswell v. Powell Duffryn Ass. Collieries [1939] 3 All E.R. 733.
I cannot overlook the fact, that Mr. Mohommed was agreeing, that from the point of impact, or just before, he could have seen further west along the Tabaquite/Rio Claro Road for a distance of 200 to 300 feet. That he only saw the opposite truck when it was about to pass or overtake the taxi and just before the accident happened.
As the road was a straight road and only one vehicle was travelling eastwards then why did Mr. Mohommed see the truck travelling...
To continue reading
Request your trial