Supreme Court
Action No. 235 of 1981
17th June, 1983
Rajasingham, J., Q. C.

Messrs Pitts & Elrington, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Oscar Sabido, for the Defendant.

Tort - Negligence - Motor vehicular accident - Driving too fast - Not keeping a proper look out - Damages of value of car - Inconvenience suffered to be taken into consideration in assessing damages.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff's claim is for damages arising from the negligent driving of the Defendant. The Defendant denies negligence on his part and states that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the Plaintiff's car by the Plaintiff's wife.

The evidence admitted by both parties is that on the 27th of April, 1981 and the Defendant driving his Ford Granada car ran into the rear of a 1970 LTD Ford car driven by the wife of the Plaintiff, Mrs. Verna Hope, at about 7:55 a.m. at a point immediately before the turn off the Ring Road at Belmopan into the road leading into the Police Compound.

Mrs. Hope's evidence and that of her passenger Mr. Basilio Ordonez, is that she had four passengers of whom two were ladies employed at the Government Printers and two were gentlemen employed at the Establishment Department where she herself worked. The Establishment Department is approached by the same road that led off Ring Road and into the Police Compound. Mr. Ordonez says that at about a hundred yards before the point of impact the ladies had informed Mrs. Hope that they would disembark at the turn into the Police Compound and find their way to work from there; they had to go much further to reach the Printers. Mrs. Hope says she does not remember this and that she decided that that was where she would let them disembark. She says, and Ordonez corroborates her, that she heard Ordonez open the right rear door and then there was a bang as the car was hit. Ordonez said he was about to put his feet on the ground, and had in fact put one foot on the ground, when the impact occurred. Mrs. Hope said she slowed down and put on her indicator to show she intended to turn or pull over, before she actually came to a stop. Mr. Ordonez again corroborates a part of this, saying "she eased speed before reaching the junction" and that the car slowed before it stopped. Mr. Ordonez also says that when he started to step out the car had halted about six to eight inches from the edge of the paved area. Mrs. Hope said she pulled over to the side and stopped about 20 to 22 feet after she had indicated her intention to do so. She says she thinks her off side wheels were on the grass verge, but accordingly, to Mr. Ordonez they were still on the tarmac. Since she was on other side of the car she may have actually thought she was off the tarmac.

The Defendant gave evidence and said that he was travelling behind Mrs. Hope's car at about 25 m.p.h. and was keeping his eyes on her car, when she stopped without a warning. He says that he braked hard but his car skidded and hit her car. He says she gave no indication of her intention to stop but he cannot say whether her brake lights had come on or not. He says that he was about two feet from the edge of the tarmac and that she was also about that distance from the edge even when she came to a halt. Although both parties spoke of a Police prosecution neither thought fit to produce any sketch of the scene.

The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendant was travelling at a speed faster than he admits he was doing and that he failed to keep a proper lookout. The Defendant's case is that Mrs. Hope stopped without any warning and thus created an emergency in which his urgent action was frustrated by his car skidding. Thus two factors became relevant, the speed of the Defendant and whether Mrs. Hope gave sufficient warning to traffic behind her of her intention to stop.

Both, Mrs. Hope and Mr. Ordonez say that she slowed down before she stopped six to eight inches from the edge of a two lane road, which the Defendant admitted the Ring Road was. She says she indicated her intention to turn or pull over, but Defendant says she did not. Mr. Ordonez says he had the rear door open and had actually put down one foot when the impact occurred. Although this is not evidence of warning, it is evidence that there had been a certain lapse of time before the impact and after she stopped. This affects the question of the sufficiency of the warning. Then we have the evidence of the Defendant that he was travelling at the same speed at which she was travelling and at a distance of 25 feet or so behind her, and that another vehicle was coming along at the same distance behind him. By his own evidence, he had to stop very suddenly and hence without warning to the vehicle behind him. Yet that vehicle was able to avoid hitting him. Only two conclusions are possible - either that that vehicle was travelling very much slower than the Defendant or that the driver of that vehicle was keeping a better lookout than the Defendant. As to which of these conclusions are to be drawn, or whether even both conclusions are to be drawn, can be decided by my next consideration, namely whether the Defendant was travelling faster than he says he was.

The damage to the Plaintiff's car is very extensive. Its chassis was bent in at least three places, its front and rear windscreens were broken, its trunk floor was folded upwards and its rear right fender hit so hard that it damaged both right side doors. Mr. Ordonez stated and it is uncontested, that the Defendant's car is a light car, which I take the mean lighter than the Plaintiff's car. Both Ordonez and the mechanic Sutherland stated that the damage indicates a very hard impact. It is not contested that at the moment of impact the Plaintiff's car had come to a halt. The damage was therefore caused by the velocity and weight of the Defendant's car.

The Defendant says he was 25 feet or so behind the Plaintiff's car. Mrs. Hope says that when she decided to stop and indicated her intention to do so, the Defendant's car was on the curve behind her; from Ordonez we know that that curve was 100 yards behind the point at which the accident occurred. Bearing in mind Ordonez's evidence that he was stepping out of the car when it was hit and what that means in terms of time, I believe the Defendant was more than 25 feet behind Mrs. Hope when she stopped her car. This in turn means the Defendant, unless he was travelling faster than he admits he was, had more time than the driver behind him to avoid running into the car ahead of him and, therefore, sufficient warning, of her stopping her car because the car behind him by 25 feet was able to do so. I believe the damage shows that the Defendant was travelling at a speed greater than 25 miles per hour and, if he was further back from Mrs. Hope than the driver behind him was from him, it also leads to the conclusion that any surprise was due to his inattention and not to Mrs. Hope stopping suddenly.

I therefore, find that the accident was caused entirely by the negligence of the Defendant in that at the speed at which he followed behind the car driven by Mrs. Hope he was either too close behind and travelling at too great a speed in the circumstances to permit him, even with sufficient warning, to bring his vehicle to a halt before he hit her car, or that he was far enough behind but not paying sufficient attention to what was happening in front of him and thus ran into the rear of her parked vehicle.

The Plaintiff stated in evidence that his car had cost him $3,000 when he purchased it approximately seven months earlier. The mechanic Sutherland valued it at $3,000 at the time of the accident. Sutherland also said that the wreck was worth approximately $500 and cross-examination established that this was probably accurate. Sutherland also estimated that the repair of this vehicle although not wholly satisfactory, would cost in the region of $2,500. Thus the Plaintiff has proved in two different ways that $2,500 is a reasonable estimate of the damage caused to the Plaintiff by the actual damage to the vehicle.

The Plaintiff also claimed other damages, being cost of bus fare to and from Belize City for himself and his family once a week and taxi fares involved between the bus station and Plues Street, their home in Belize City. The Plaintiff said they come every week, but Mrs. Hope reduced it to "almost" every week. The cost of each journey was $33 for the bus for the family of six. The damaged car had a 351 c.c. engine and according to Sutherland gave about 16 miles to the gallon of gasoline. Thus gasoline alone for each journey would have cost in the region of $20. I think that allowing for expenditure on oils for wear and tear on the tyres, suspension and engine of the car, the journey to Belize City did not cost the Plaintiff any more by bus then it would have cost him in gasoline and in maintaining the car for such use.

I am not satisfied with the evidence of the use of taxis in Belize City and am inclined to believe it is an exaggeration. However, there is no denying that they suffer inconvenience both in getting about in Belize City and in going to and from work. I think a sum of $250 is a reasonable estimate of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and his family by reason of the inconvenience of having to do without a vehicle. I therefore, award a sum of $2,750 to the Plaintiff with legal interest from the date of judgment. I also award to the Plaintiff the costs of the Action.

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