Supreme Court
Action No. 76 of 1977
23rd July, 1981
Moe, J.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Plaintiff
Mr. Hubert Elrington for the Defendant

Motor vehicle accident - Assessment of damages - Defendant wholly negligent and blameworthy - Principles adopted by court in assessing quantum of damages.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant for the loss she incurred as a result of damage to her motor car which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed for damages for loss he incurred as a result of damage to his car which he alleged was caused by the negligence of the agent of the plaintiff.

A collision occurred at the junction of Amara Avenue and Allenby Street between a vehicle driven by the agent of the plaintiff along Amara Avenue a major road and a vehicle driven by the defendant along Allenby Street a minor road. There was great divergence in the accounts given by the drivers of the vehicles as to how the collision took place.

I gave weight to the evidence of policeman Baeza and Mr Miguel Schultz and found that after the impact the vehicles were found at the junction of the roads Amara Avenue and Allenby Street. The plaintiff's car was facing a southerly direction (i.e. the direction in which it was travelling), was more to the left hand side of Amara Avenue as one faces south with its front turned slightly to its left. The defendant's car was facing an easterly direction (i.e. the direction in which it was travelling) with a part of it on Allenby Street and a part on Amara Avenue.

The evidence of the position of the vehicles was consistent with the account given by the driver of the plaintiff's car as to how the collision occurred. That is that he was driving in the middle of Amara Avenue, that he braked, the vehicle skidded, he tried to cut away and the front fender of the vehicle he was driving collided with the defendant's vehicle, which skidded along with the plaintiff's vehicle and the two vehicles stopped.

I found the defendant's account unreliable and difficult to accept. It was put before the Court by cross-examination that the plaintiff's driver was travelling at fifty miles per hour; that the defendant had stopped at the junction of the two roads; that the defendant saw the plaintiff's car coming (i.e. at 50 mph) and crossed the junction.

While it was difficult to accept this as what occurred the defendant by evidence confirmed that it was only a suggestion and not to be relied on for he avoided giving any evidence of the rate of speed of the plaintiff's vehicle which he said he saw. Rather the defendant gave evidence which amounted to an admission of a breach of regulation 116 of the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Regulations and evidence of negligence. According to him he saw the plaintiff's car coming on the major road and he intended to get across the junction before it reached him. I also took the view that the defendant's evidence as to how the collision occurred especially under cross-examination was not consistent with the evidence of the position of the vehicles.

I accepted the plaintiff's account that the defendant drove his car along Allenby Street, was not paying attention, did not stop at the junction when he approached the major road, drove across the junction with Amara Avenue and his car and the plaintiff's car collided. I held that the defendant was guilty of negligence.

The question also arose as to whether the driver of the plaintiff's car was negligent. The driver of a vehicle on a major road still has to take care to avoid collision with a vehicle emerging from a side road vide Dorrington v. Griff Fender (Swansea) Ltd. (1953) 1 A.E.R. 1177. In accepting the plaintiff's driver's account I found that he saw the defendant's vehicle emerging from the side road Allenby Street and blew his horn. When he saw that the defendant's vehicle didn't stop where it should have stopped, he braked and the collision occurred. I did not find negligence on the part of the driver of the plaintiff's car. I held the collision was due to the negligence of the defendant.

The plaintiff was entitled to recover as damages the difference between the market values before and after the accident. She did not repair the vehicle. Before the accident, the vehicle was valued at $2,000.00. After the accident it was valued as scrap only for which she got $300.00 - $400.00 leaving a difference of $1,700.00 - $1,600.00. To repair the car would have cost about $1,600.00 - $1,800.00. I found that the loss of $1,700.00 - $1,600.00 incurred by valuing the vehicle as scrap was reasonable in the circumstances and hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover that amount. She however claimed $1,500.00 and that amount is allowed with costs. Judgment accordingly.