Supreme Court
Action No. 319 of 1980
25th July 1984
Moe, C.J.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Plaintiff
Mr. Derek Courtenay S.C. for the Defendant

Negligence - claim for damages for damage to and loss of use of motor vehicle consequent upon collision - assertion by defendant that accident caused wholly or partly by negligence of plaintiff's servant or agent - varied accounts of incident - evidence consistent with plaintiff's driver's version - finding of negligence on part of the defendant - collision sole result of negligence of defendant - award of $4,220 in damages to plaintiff with interest thereon.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff claims damages for loss and damage which he says he suffered as a result of the negligent driving of the Defendant between miles 33 and 34 on the Northern Highway. He alleged that the Defendant so negligently drove, managed and controlled his truck along the said road in the opposite direction that he caused or permitted the same violently to collide with the Plaintiff's said Power Wagon. The Defendant denied any negligence on his part and alleged that the collision was caused wholly or partly by the negligence of the Plaintiff's servant or agent.

The account of the driver of the Plaintiff's vehicle and that of the Defendant as to how the collision occurred varied considerably. There was evidence that the vehicle which the Defendant was driving left a brake mark of 51 feet in length. That mark began on the road and ran in a direction which was not consistent with the account of the collision which the Defendant sought to impress on the Court. On the other hand, it was consistent with the version given by the Plaintiff's driver. I accepted that version.

I found that Goldbourne Miles was driving the motor vehicle of the Plaintiff on his right and proper side, going in a northerly direction on the Northern Highway. The Defendant was driving his vehicle in the opposite direction at a fast rate of speed on his left or wrong side of the road. He swung his vehicle to his right or away from the Plaintiff's vehicle, and the left side of the Plaintiff's vehicle and the tail of the Defendant's vehicle collided. The Defendant's vehicle stopped about 66 feet from where the vehicles collided, and the Plaintiff's vehicle about 6 feet. The Defendant's vehicle left a brake mark of about 51 feet and the Plaintiff's vehicle about 6 feet. I found that the Defendant was negligent and that the collision was a result of that negligence. I did not find any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff's driver. The Defendant is liable for the consequence of his negligence.

As a result of the collision the Plaintiff's vehicle, which is a tow-truck, suffered damage. There was a dent on the top of the bonnet, the windshield was shattered, tool box was torn off, the left door to the cab damaged, the left portion of the rack on top of the cab was torn. The Plaintiff incurred expenses to repair this damage. He satisfied the Court that he lost the use of his vehicle while it was being repaired. I allow for this item $1,620.00. For the rack on top of the cab - $785.00; for the replacement of other items stated above - $1,000.00; $15,00 for two bolts and $850.00 for the cost of labour to effect the necessary repairs. I did not accept amounts stated with respect to other items were properly and reasonably incurred in the light of the evidence as to the damage to the vehicle. I allow a total of $4,220.00 with interest thereon from the 1st July, 1980 until payment .

Plaintiff to have his costs.

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