Supreme Court
Action No. 69 of 1981
27th May, 1983.
Moe, CJ.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Plaintiff.
Mr. W.P. Elrington for the Defendants.

Claim for damages for loss of vehicle as a result of collision caused by negligence of 2nd Defendant while driving vehicle owned by 1st Defendant - Evidence of Plaintiff accepted - Version supported by eyewitnesses and police constable who investigated matter - No negligence found on part of Plaintiff - Finding of negligence on part of 2nd Defendant - 1st Defendant vicariously liable - Damages awarded to Plaintiff of $3,350.00 - Value of wagon less mitigated loss - Defendant to pay costs.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants damages for the loss of his station wagon which he claims was damaged beyond repair when it came into collision with a motor bus owned by the first Defendant on account of the negligence of the second Defendant, who was driving the bus at the time around mile 27 along the Northern Highway. The Defendants deny that they were negligent and say that the collision was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff.

The account of the drivers of the two vehicles involved as to how the collision occurred were quite different and after consideration of the evidence as a whole I accept the version of the Plaintiff. I found that the Plaintiff was driving his station wagon along the Northern Highway at about 30 m.p.h. It was raining at the time. When he was approaching a curve which curved to his right, the motor bus came over the curve fast at about 50 m.p.h. in the center of the road. The Plaintiff swerved to the right, applied his brake, slowing the vehicle. The bus came and hit his wagon, pulled the front of the wagon a bit to its left, disengaged from the wagon and ran over to the right side of the road in the direction of which the bus was travelling. The Plaintiff's evidence in this regard is amply supported by the evidence of one Sadie Coote, who was a passenger in the Plaintiff's car. She said "I noticed the bus was coming fast. It seemed to be mid-road coming. I said something to Mr. Staine (the Plaintiff). He took more to the side of the road. Staine changed speed and was driving a little slower. There was a crash. Mr. Staine's car was on the right hand side of the road just before the accident." Another witness a licensed driver who was driving another vehicle along the said road, said that about one mile from where the vehicle were found in collision, the bus had overtaken him at a high speed which was a little fast for the road and the condition of the road. The Plaintiff's account is further supported by the evidence of measurements taken by a police constable of the vehicles and their positions after the accident. The measurements are entirely consistent with the Plaintiff's account as to the way in which the collision occurred but they are at considerable variance with the Defendant' s account.

I found that the driver of the bus did not keep the bus to its right of the road as required by the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Regulations and in all the circumstances did not use the care he ought to have taken. I held him guilty of negligence. At the time he was driving in the course of his employment with the first Defendant who is vicariously liable also for his negligence. I did not find any evidence of negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

With regard to damages, the Plaintiff specifically pleaded a total loss of his wagon. He satisfied me that the vehicle was so damaged that it was not reasonable to repair the vehicle and consequently was a write-off. The value of the wagon was $4,000.00. He however mitigated his loss and sold parts of the wagon for sums amounting to $650.00. I allow him the sum of $3,350.00

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $3,350.00 with costs.

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