Mr. Nicholas Dujon for the plaintiff
Defendant absent and unrepresented.

JUDGMENT

This is a simple case of negligence and claim for damages consequent on that negligence. The negligence itself complained of was the driving of the defendant on the evening of March 5, 1999 on the Northern Highway between Miles 5 and 6.

When the case was called neither the Defendant nor his attorney was in Court, this notwithstanding notice to the parties by the Registry. The notice stated that the trial was set for today, 7 November 2000.

The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim. The plaintiff claim special damages in the total amount of $16,650 comprising $10,000 as the costs for the constructive total loss of his Ford Taurus Motor Car, and the sum of $6,650 representing the amount he had to pay for rental of a vehicle for 19 weeks as a result of the accident. The plaintiff sustained, he said in evidence, a nose-bleed as a result of the accident.

The plaintiff testified that at about 6:30 pm on 5 March 1999, he was driving his Ford Taurus vehicle towards Ladyville when the Defendant driving in the opposite direction swung into a vehicle in front of the plaintiff and then swung back into the road and hit his own vehicle. This resulted in extensive damage to the plaintiff's vehicle.

The plaintiff said in evidence that he had paid US$5,000 plus $2,000 duty for his vehicle, and that he was claiming $10,000 for his vehicle. He further said that as a result of the accident he had to use a rental vehicle for 19 weeks for which he paid $350 per week. He produced receipts representing payment for the hire of vehicle and this was tendered in evidence as GS1-19

The next witness to testify for the plaintiff was Fredrick Gordon police corporal 114. He said he was stationed at Punta Gorda, but in March 1999, he was stationed as the officer in charge of Ladyville Police Station. This witness testified that on the evening of 5 March 1999 he received a report of an accident on the Northern Highway between Miles 5 and 6. He visited the scene of the accident, where he noticed a Ford Taurus with extensive damages to the front and on the right hand side of the road he saw a pick up truck which was also extensively damaged

He drew sketch plan together with an explanatory key to the plan after first making a rough sketch. These were tendered in evidence as exhibits FG1-3

This witness testified that as a result of investigations of the accident, the Defendant was charged, and as the defendant pleaded guilty, he the witness did not have to go to Court.

From the evidence in this case, lam satisfied that the plaintiff has proved his case. I am satisfied that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant. In the result I find for the plaintiff.

However, in so far as the special damage claimed by the plaintiff is concerned, that pad relating to the value of the Ford Taurus I am not able to accept entirely. As special damage, it must be claimed and proved strictly.

I have no evidence of the value of the vehicle and the duty paid for it apart from the say-so of the plaintiff. I accordingly award the sum of $8,000 for the loss of the plaintiff's vehicle.

I however award the sum of $6,650 representing the cost of the hiring of an alternate vehicle by the plaintiff.

This makes a total of $14,650 as special damage to the Plaintiff.

I also award the sum of $5,000 as general damages to the plaintiff.

The costs of this action are awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.
As the Defendant has a counterclaim in this action, the plaintiff is applying
for the counterclaim to be struck out for the non-appearance of either the
defendant or his Attorney.

It is so ordered

A. 0. CONTEH
Chief Justice

Dated: 7th November, 2000.