Supreme Court
Action No. 198 of 1977
April 18, 2000
Rajasingham, J.

Mr. Denys Barrow, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. J. C. Gray, for second-named Defendant.

Damages - Death caused by dangerous driving - Damages claim on behalf of estate by administrator - Whether there was sufficient evidence that deceased's death was a consequence of the accident - Highly improbable that there was more than one accident at place of accident - Quantum of damages - Applicable multiplier effect to determine damages based on English authorities.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff William Borland and his wife Isabella claim damages for loss of support caused the death of Clifford Borland, their son aged 21 years. They allege that their son died as a result of the overturning of cane truck No. A6012 owing to the negligent driving of the said truck by the first Defendant. The truck belonged to the second Defendant. The Plaintiff William Borland also claims damages on behalf of the estate of Clifford Borland of which he is the administrator. The Defendants put the Plaintiff to proof of everything averred by him, while denying any negligence or damage.

The Plaintiff and his wife, Isabella, gave evidence of the fact of their son having died as a result of an accident on the 13th of February, 1977; he died two days later. They also gave evidence of the fact of the son Clifford paying each parent a personal allowance out of his earnings, as they were very advanced in age. William Borland said his son gave him $10 a week to assist him and Isabella Borland said she received $20 a week. Mr. Gray is cross-examination sought to show that what Isabella received was in fact payment for washing her son's clothes and preparing his breakfast and dinner. She denied this was so and stated that she was paid this sum even when Clifford was away staying at his sister's house. They both said they received little or no help from Clifford's older brothers since they married and had large families. Mrs. Borland said these sons used to help in a similar fashion prior to their marriage. Thus presumably Clifford too would have stopped this assistance when he married. He would in all probability have married within the next year or two; Mr. Barrow agreed he was of an age when, in Belize, a young man's thoughts turn to marriage. I do not believe any money paid to Isabella and William Borland was intended by Clifford Borland to be payment for services; I believe he was assisting his parents in their old age. It is evident from Isabella's repeated bankruptcy at running a little shop, that they needed assistance.

Eldo Gideon, the brother-in-law of Clifford gave evidence and stated that he left his brother-in-law at a dance that night at 2 a.m. At 4 a.m. he was informed of the accident and set out for the scene at Chan Pine Ridge cut off. Before he got there he met the vehicle bringing the injured persons and got into it. He said they went to Orange Walk hospital and there he saw his brother-in-law taken in and laid on the floor, unconscious. He rushed his brother-in-law to Belize City hospital but Clifford died two days later without regaining consciousness.

Gideon said he later saw the Defendants truck lying on its side on the wrong side of the road at Chan Pine Ridge cutoff.

The first Defendant gave evidence and stated that he took the vehicle to go to a dance with his girl friend. He said he took it without his father's permission, the father being the owner. He said he was returning from the dance and was over on the left side of the road, because the surface was better, when at a bend he saw an on-coming vehicle and tried to get over to his side of the road. Presumably that caused his to turn over. He said he did not know he had about thirty people in the back of his vehicle, which was an open cane truck. This is such an outrageous lie that it must affect his whole credit. He did admit he would have driven more slowly if he had known he had passengers. In view of the fact that he could not have been ignorant of the presence of thirty people in the back of his open truck, it amounts to an admission of fast driving. I do not have any doubt that the was driving negligently and with full knowledge of the presence of his cargo of thirty persons.

The final question that arises for determination is whether there is sufficient evidence for saying that the deceased Clifford Borland was among the thirty passengers and whether his death was a consequence of this particular accident. This was averred in the statement of claim and denied in the defence. The evidence led on this aspect leaves much to be desired. Police records could have been summoned to prove it. However, it now falls on the Court to see if there is any evidence for saying Clifford Borland died as a result of this accident. The evidence of Gideon is that he received a message saying his brother-in-law was in an accident that night. He said he was, in furtherance of this information, going to the Chan Pine Ridge cutoff. Thus one may conclude that that was the scene of the accident. However, he met the vehicle bringing the injured and went with them to the hospital. There he saw his brother-in-law laid unconscious on the floor. Subsequently Clifford died without regaining consciousness. None of this was challenged by cross-examination. The first Defendant, giving evidence, did not deny any of this. I am of the opinion that the totality of the evidence established that Clifford Borland was among the injured in this accident and eventually succumbed to his injuries. It would be highly improbable that there was more than one accident at the Chan Pine Ridge cutoff that night.

The ownership of vehicle A6012 is proved as being the second Defendant. While this raises a rebuttable presumption that its use was by a servant or agent, the first Defendant has stated that he took the truck without his father's permission; in fact he said he stole it. While I agree with Mr. Barrow that this appears to be an attempt to get as far away as possible from the father to avoid any liability in him, the fact remains that the journey itself was entirely a private jaunt of the first Defendant with nothing to show even knowledge on the part of the second Defendant. I, therefore, hold that there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff's contention that the first Defendant drove the truck as the servant or agent of the second Defendant at the time of the accident.

In view of Clifford Borland's age, I think a year is a reasonable period to take as being the period during which he would have continued to support his parents. I, therefore, award damages in a sum of $520 to William Borland and $1,040 to Isabella Borland against the first Defendant. I also award a sum of $275 as funeral expenses met by William Borland to be recoverable from the first Defendant.

It remains for me to arrive at a figure for compensation for loss suffered by the estate of the deceased Clifford Borland. The deceased was 21 years of age at the time of his death and had, therefore, in Belize been deprived of an expectation of 39 years of life. I think, therefore, that a reasonable multiple based on the English authorities would be 15. There is no evidence of the earnings of the deceased. The only evidence, besides the sum given to his parents every week, is that his estate was $85 at his death. Presuming he earned and saved this sum since he attained majority at 18, his annual savings are in the region of $30. On this basis, I award a sum of $450 on this ground. I also award a sum of $300 for the pain and suffering undergone by the deceased in the two days preceding his death.

I, therefore, award a sum of $795 to William Borland both for loss of support and against funeral expenses. I award a sum of $1,040 to Isabella Borland for loss of support. I award a sum of $750 as compensation for loss suffered by the estate of the deceased.

The Plaintiff will be entitled to recover these sums only against the first Defendant, with costs. I dismiss the Plaintiff's claim against the second Defendant with costs.

----------- O O -------------