Supreme Court
Action No. 165 of 1980
22nd April, 1983
Alcantara. J.

Mr. Denys Barrow for Plaintiffs.
Mr. Allan G. Quallo for Defendant.

Claim for damages for personal injuries by 1st Plaintiff and loss of motor vehicle by 2nd Plaintiff consequent upon collision caused by the negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle belonging to the Crown - Counterclaim for loss of vehicle - Plaintiff's version of how accident occurred accepted - No medical evidence adduced by Plaintiff to assist in assessment of damages - Damages for injuries and pain and suffering assessed at $7,500.00. Special damages allowed - Judgment for 1st Plaintiff of $7,950.00 - Judgment for 2nd Plaintiff of $5,000.00 - Value of vehicle less scrap value - Defendant to pay costs of action.

J U D G M E N T

Just before Xmas 1978 a tragic motorcar collision took place on the western Highway in which, amongst others, the then Financial Secretary Mr. Ralph A. Fonseca lost his life. The first Plaintiff William Tillett was driving a Ford Pickup belonging to the second Plaintiff towards Belize City. In the opposite direction one Linsford Williams, a corporal of the Belize Police Force, was driving a motor vehicle No.7706, belonging to the Crown. At, or near Mile 39, they met and collided. On the pleadings each blames the other for the accident. The particulars of damages alleged by the parties against the other is similar; excessive speed, driving on the wrong side of the road, failing to have proper control, etc.

The first Plaintiff claims damages for severe personal injuries. The second Plaintiff for the loss of the Pickup. The Defendant claims for the loss of vehicle 7706, a Ford Cortina.

The question to be answered is who is to blame, or if both, in what proportions, apart from the proper assessment of the damages claimed.

There is only one eyewitness to the accident, the Plaintiff William Tillett. At the time he had a passenger with him but according to the Plaintiff the passenger saw nothing as he was asleep at the time. In any case he has not been called.

There were five persons in the Ford Cortina at the time of the accident but they all died in or as the result of the collision. I am therefore left with one version of how the accident took place. Mr. William Tillett in the witness-box has given his evidence in a clear and straightforward manner. He has not been shaken in cross-examination. I accept his version of how the accident happened.

The main witness for the Defence has been an ex-Inspector of Vehicles who gave expert witness of the damages he found on each vehicle and his opinion as to where on the road the accident took place. I have not been impressed by his evidence and I am not prepared to accept his assessment of how the accident happened or as to the exact damages suffered by each vehicle. His credibility as witness has been destroyed in the course of his cross-examination by counsel for the Plaintiff.

The parties have agreed before me that the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance have been complied with and that no issue arises out of that.

The Defendant in paragraph 7 of the Defence has cryptically pleaded thus:

"The Plaintiffs cannot have and maintain this action in law against the Defendant"

Up to the eleventh hour I have been left in suspense as to what the Defendant was going to submit. The Plaintiffs did not think fit to ask for particulars and the Defence did not think fit to allude to this Defence in his opening. I deprecate this practice of mystery. The Court should be informed from the very outset not only what the case is going to be but the different issues are going to be. In some jurisdiction it is the practice for counsel to supply the Bench just before the hearing with the list of authorities that they intend to bring to attention of the Court so that the Judge can have them readily available. I commend this practice.

The Defence pleaded in paragraph 7 of the Defence has not been pursued in the final address. I am still curious about it. The mystery remains unsolved.

The assessment of damages presents some difficulty arising out of no medical evidence having been adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff. The evidence is that as the result of the accident the Plaintiff was an in-patient at the Belize hospital from the 21st Dec., 1978 to the 8th January, 1979 and as out-patient until the end of February, 1979. During the period he was an out-patient the Plaintiff was back at work.

I accept that following the accident the Plaintiff was in severe pain and had difficulty in eating and swallowing also the injuries listed in paragraphs (iii) to (vii) of the Particulars of claim. I cannot accept that he had two broken ribs and a punctured lung. The Plaintiff's evidence is hearsay. Neither can I accept that the tumor he was operated on later by Dr. Lizama was a consequence of the accident. There is no evidence that it was so.

The Plaintiff also says that he still suffers from the accident but there is no medical connecting link. Consequently I accept his special damages of travelling to Brooklyn (U.S.A.) and consulting a specialist; but not the operation for a tumour. As regards general damages I award an amount to compensate him for the injuries received and for the pain and suffering during the period he was receiving hospital treatment both as an in and out patient. The figure of $7,500 seems to me to be adequate.

I give judgment for the first Plaintiff in the sum of $7,950.

Insofar as the second Plaintiff is concerned I cannot accept that the Ford Pick-up after the accident had no scrap value. The photographs exhibited show that some parts could be salvaged. The witness Linthicum Neal has somewhat exaggerated the things he says were stolen from the vehicle. They might have been stolen but much later; not when he went to see it. In any case if it was a total wreck what was the use of bringing it to Belize City to have it dismantled. I accept the value of the Ford Pick-up at $6,000 but say that the scrap value was in the region of $1,000. In consequences I give judgment to the second Plaintiff in the sum of $5,000.

Judgment for the Plaintiffs in the above sum. The Defendant to pay the costs of the action.

----------OO----------