Ramdeen v Bahadur et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Jamadar, J. |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2007 HC 264 |
| Docket Number | 1813 of 2006; 3196 of 2002 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 18 December 2007 |
High Court
Jamadar, J.
1813 of 2006; 3196 of 2002
Mr. R. Otway for the plaintiff.
Mr. R. Gosine for the first and second defendants.
Negligence - Motor vehicle accident — Liability — Plaintiff deemed 85% liable for the accident — Plaintiff failed to see defendant approaching when changing lanes — Plaintiff failed to verify blind spot — Plaintiff failed to indicate intention to change lanes — Defendant failed to brake or sound horn or keep a proper lookout — Defendant was found 15% liable.
The plaintiff's claim arises out of an accident that occurred on the 24th October 1998 between motor vehicle PBD 3473 (the plaintiff's vehicle) and PBB 8552 (the defendant's vehicle). On the 3rd April 2007, in order to accommodate counsel for the plaintiff, it was agreed that liability only would be determined by this court on the 26th November 2007.
In my opinion the driver of PBD 3473, Nalini Ramdeen, was 85 percent responsible and the driver of PBB 8552, Joseph Bahadur, was 15 percent responsible for this collision. Liability, damages and costs are apportioned accordingly. The plaintiff is therefore only entitled to receive 15 percent of her assessed damages, interest and costs from the defendant. There being no counterclaim, the defendant is only entitled to recover 85 percent of his costs from the plaintiff.
This collision occurred while both vehicles were travelling west along the Churchill Roosevelt Highway just after the Aranguez intersection, which is regulated by traffic lights.
The central issue was whether PBB 8552 collided with the rear of PBD 3473 while it was in the northern lane (as alleged by the plaintiff), or whether PBD 3473 moved from the centre lane to its right and into the northern lane causing its right side rear to collide with the front side left of PBB 8552, resulting in both vehicles swerving to the right and onto the centre meridian of the Highway (as alleged by the defendant.).
The main secondary issues were: (i) whether PBD 3473 was at a standstill at the Aranguez traffic lights which were showing red before the collision (asserted by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant); and/or (ii) whether the driver of PBD 3473 was speaking on a cell phone at the time of collision; and/or (iii) whether the driver of the PBB 8552 was attentive and alert to what was happening ahead of him along the Churchill Roosevelt Highway.
The accident occurred on the 24th October 1998. This action was commenced by writ on the 8th October 2002. The Statement of Claim was filed on the 12th June 2003. The Defence was filed on the 1st of July 2003.
In the original Statement of Claim it was not pleaded that PBB 8552 collided with the rear of PBD 3473. The Defence did plead that PBB 8552 moved from the centre lane to the northern lane without indicating an intention and when it was unsafe to do so, and without regard for PBB 8552, and thereby colliding with PBB 8552.
On the 28th September 2006, after the matter had been set down for trial, the Statement of Claim was amended and for the first time it was pleaded that PBB 8552 collided with the rear of PBD 3473.
Both the plaintiff and the driver of PBD 3473 stated (in their witness statements) that at about 4.30 p.m., while heading west along the Churchill Roosevelt Highway, PBD 3473 had come to a stop at the Aranguez traffic lights which were on red and had waited there for about five minutes before they pulled off when the lights turned green.
The plaintiff, who was the front seat passenger, only recalled feeling something hit PBD 3473. And she only recalled inquiring of the driver, her daughter, what had happened and recalled nothing after that about the accident.
However, in cross examination the plaintiff explained that on the day in question she and her daughter and two other family members had visited Grand Bazaar and had left there and were returning home westwards along the Churchill Roosevelt Highway to El Socorro, to Don Miguel Extension Road (South) which is on the southern side of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway. She explained that the Churchill Roosevelt Highway had three lanes going west. That after exiting Grand Bazaar and on entering the Churchill Roosevelt Highway they were travelling in the left lane, but that the collision occurred while they were in the right lane. She was then questioned as follows:
Question: So at some point moved to the centre lane?
Answer: Yes.
Question: And, from the centre lane moved to the right lane?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Did vehicle move from the left lane to the centre lane before Aranguez traffic lights?
Answer: No.
Question: So changed lanes after the Aranguez intersection?
Answer: Yes.
Question: How far after the Aranguez traffic light did it change lanes?
Answer: Soon after the vehicle pulled off from the traffic light, changed lanes.
Later on in the plaintiff's cross examination she suggested that while at a standstill at the Aranguez intersection, PBD 3473 was occupying the centre lane. This response followed questions about which lane the plaintiff would have had to occupy if they were going to their home, which would have been the left lane, in order to turn south onto Don Miguel Extension Road. Pressed further in cross examination the plaintiff responded as follows:
Question: After passed the Aranguez intersection, did your vehicle change lanes?
Answer: She crossed the road, the intersection, drove a little way to go to the right hand side.
Question: So when moving to the right hand side felt impact?
Answer: A little way after that.
Question: How far after that (the intersection) she began to change lanes?
Answer: A little way after, about this room (estimated at 40 feet).
Question: She changed lanes gradually or a sudden pull to the right?
Answer: Gradually.
The plaintiff further explained in cross examination that the accident happened about 60-80 feet after the Aranguez intersection, and occurred while PBD 3473 was still accelerating. Also, that in fact they were not going home, and the reason they changed lanes (to the right lane) was because they were going to El Socorro (North). And finally, having earlier told the court that she “felt the impact to the back of the car”, she stated in cross examination:
Question: No impact to the back of the car?
Answer: I don't know. I just felt a hit on the car. I really don't know which side of the car got hit.
Question: Could it have been the right rear fender of the car?
Answer: I don't know.
Having heard and seen the plaintiff I formed the opinion that, in spite of some minor discrepancies in her testimony, in cross examination the plaintiff was as forthright as she could be.
I have however assessed the evidence of the driver less favourably. What is most significant about the driver's evidence is the extent to which it was inconsistent with the plaintiffs. The driver of PBD 3473 stated that she was driving on “the extreme right lane and had travelled approximately 20 meters from the intersection” when she “felt an impact to the rear of the vehicle.” At this point she estimated that she was driving at about 40 to 45 kilometers per hour.
The driver agreed that they had left Grand Bazaar and, like her mother initially, she stated that they were “going home”. Questioned further, she agreed that home was on the southern side of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway and that the collision occurred on the northern lane of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway. She was then questioned as follows:
Question: After left Grand Bazaar, entered the left lane of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway?
Answer: Yes.
Question: At some point in time moved to your right?
Answer: Yes.
Question: That would have been after the Aranguez traffic lights?
Answer: No, before the Aranguez traffic lights.
Question: When you changed lanes how far away from the Aranguez traffic lights?
Answer: 10-15 metres away from the Aranguez traffic lights.
Question: To get to your home after the Aranguez traffic lights would have to be in the left lane?
Answer: Yes.
Question: So…why in the right lane, if had to be in the left lane?
Answer: I don't know at this point in time.
To court: I cannot remember why I was driving in the right lane.
Clearly there is a material inconsistency between this evidence and that of the plaintiff. Did PBD 3473 change lanes and move to its right lane from the centre lane of the Churchill Roosevelt Highway before or after the Aranguez traffic lights?
Later on in cross examination it was twice suggested to this witness that she was moving from the centre lane to the right lane after the Aranguez traffic lights. On the first occasion she responded as follows [On the second occasion she simply denied the assertion]:
I did not move from the centre lane to the right lane after Aranguez that happened before Aranguez. After Aranguez I remained in my lane, I didn't change lanes at all.
In assessing this aspect of the plaintiff's case I have considered the driver's testimony in the context of all her evidence and in particular in light of the surrounding facts. In my opinion the evidence of this witness on this issue is untruthful, and I accept her mother's testimony in preference to hers. Because this is a most material matter in resolving the issue of liability in this case, set out below is a more detailed analysis of the driver's evidence, which lends support to this finding of fact.
The driver insisted that PBD 3473 was at a standstill at the Aranguez traffic lights for about five minutes and that she was in the right lane, which she remained in throughout until ‘the collision’ - which she asserted adamantly was a full rear end collision.
It was agreed by all parties that the weather conditions were fine, that it was sunny, visibility was...
To continue reading
Request your trial