Supreme Court
Action No. 2 of 1983
6th July, 1984
Rajasingham, J.

Mr. N. Dujon, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. J.C. Gray, for the Defendant.

Tort - Plaintiff suing Defendant for $724 for tools lost by Defendant - Whether Defendant's negligence resulted in the loss of the tools - Plaintiff filing action one and a half years after being informed of loss of tools.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff's claim is for a sum of $724.00 with interest and costs, as being the value of a box of tools which belonged to the Plaintiff and which he accepts was lost from the Defendant's vehicle. The Defendant denies liability on the basis that it was lost without any lack of care on his part and that the Plaintiff had accepted that that was so and relieved him of all responsibility therefor.

The evidence showed that the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff, agreed to rent the Plaintiff's house for a maximum period of three months at a rental of $200.00 per month. It was further agreed that the Defendant would look after the Plaintiff's animals, including some pigs. In order to do that the Defendant had to travel ten and a half miles to the Don Quixote Hotel at Consejo twice a week to pick up refuse food to feed the Plaintiff's pigs. Since the house was in San Andres, the Defendant had to travel to Corozal for supplies. When this came up in their discussions, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Defendant would purchase the Plaintiff's pick-up for this purpose. The Plaintiff stated that he was uncertain of the year of make of the vehicle, but thought it was 1976. The Defendant said that the vehicle often gave trouble and he suffered a lot of inconvenience on the Consejo Road. The road itself, he said, was in a very bad state of repair. On the conclusion of the agreement, the Defendant says the Plaintiff, when asked "What about the tool box?", said "Go ahead, everything in the house is yours to use". Defendant said he asked this question because the tool box was kept in the Plaintiff's bedroom when it was not in use, and the Defendant did not wish to enter that room in the Plaintiff's absence. It is easy to accept this magnanimous statement on the part of the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff, who on earlier visits abroad had suffered loss through neglect of his property, had on this occasion, made what seemed a very advantageous arrangement. Besides, as the Defendant pointed out in his evidence, the tools were required for ordinary maintenance around the premises; they would undoubtedly also be required, even if only as a stand-by, on the runs to Consejo to fetch food for the Plaintiff's pigs. I have set out the pertinent evidence and make no reference to such extraneous matters as the bank loan, etc.

The Defendant described the circumstances in which the tools were stolen. He said he set out, later than usual, to Consejo so that on his return he and his wife and sister-in-law could stop at the cinema and then return home. He did not wish to return home and then go to the cinema as their departure and thus the fact of the house being unoccupied may have been noted by burglars. The pick-up was secured and the tool box was placed out of sight behind the metal front of the rear seat. He parked the vehicle in a well lit up area within hundred yards of the theatre. Upon his return, he found the vehicle had been broken into and the tool box was missing. He promptly reported the matter to the Police, but the tools were never recovered.

The Defendant says that when the Plaintiff returned, he gave the Plaintiff a full written accounting of his stewardship and told him of the death of his dog and a rabbit and the loss of the tool box. He says the accounts showed that the Plaintiff owed him about $40.00. He had asked the Plaintiff to bring him some books. The Plaintiff had brought them and upon being told all this and being shown the accounts, said "Thank God my Mayan artifacts are safe" and wrote "$20.00 US" on a receipt which he had said were for the books, and gave it to Defendant saying "We are quits".

I have no hesitation in saying that I prefer the evidence of the Defendant to that of the Plaintiff. I was struck by the disparity between the two men, the Defendant so gullible and the Plaintiff so sharp. I do not for a moment believe the Plaintiff when he says he did not give the Defendant permission to use the tools. The tools were required almost entirely for the Plaintiff's purposes. They were required for use in an emergency on the road to and from Consejo to pick up the swill for the Plaintiff's pigs. On the day in question they had been taken along for that same purpose. The Defendant when he stopped for a purpose of his own, had placed the tool box out of sight and had locked the vehicle and left it parked in a well lit area. I cannot see how he could have taken any greater precautions, short of leaving a person to stand guard over the vehicle and its contents. Such an extreme precaution would, in my opinion, not be reasonable in those circumstances.

The Plaintiff filed an Action a year and a half after his return to Belize and after his being told of the loss. I am satisfied that he was told of the loss immediately upon his return. This long delay seems to lend credence to the Defendant's statement that, after he had been told of the loss, the Plaintiff considered that they were quits. In view of the losses he had described to the Defendant as those suffered by him on earlier visits abroad, he undoubtedly considered himself lucky when he heard of the few losses he had suffered and had obviously been satisfied that they were losses that had not been caused by a lack of care on the part of the Defendant. I cannot imagine what made him file Action one and a half years later.

I am satisfied that the Defendant had express permission to use the tools because they were required to ensure the supply of pig swill from Consejo. I am also satisfied that they were put in the pick-up that day for that purpose and that, when he went to the cinema, he took all such precautions as a reasonable man would take to ensure the safety of the tools.

I therefore dismiss the Plaintiff's Action with costs.

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