Auguste v Benjamin

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Manning, J.
• Judgment Date: 29 May 1959
• Neutral Citation: LC 1959 HC 4
• Date: 29 May 1959
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 45 of 1958

Supreme Court of the Windward and Leeward Islands. (Civil Jurisdiction)

Manning, J.

No. 45 of 1958

Auguste

and

Benjamin

Appearances:

K. A. H. Foster for plaintiff.

D. A. McNamara for defendant.

Negligence - Traffic accident — Liability.

Facts: Whether the defendant was contributorily negligent.

Held: This question was to be resolved by asking what was the real and substantial cause of the collision. The real and substantial cause of the collision was the negligence of the plaintiff in not driving on his proper side. Judgment given for the defendant.

Manning, J.

1 On the 24 ^th May 1958, the defendant Benjamin about 3.00 p.m. was driving a jeep along a road called Choc Road. Throughout the evidence this road has been called a minor road; it runs in a south-easterly direction from the Choc Cemetery to meet a main road, which runs more or less from south to north from Castries to Gros Islet. From this it may be deduced that the minor road does not meet the main road at right angles; it is a V-shaped corner. As one reaches the end of the minor road at its junction with the main road there is a clear view of the main road to the right. To the left, however, the view is entirely obscured by trees; and one has to advance some distance into the main road in order to ascertain whether any traffic is approaching the north.

2 It was Benjamin's intention to turn to the left. I believe the evidence given by himself and his passenger Monplaisir that on reaching the junction he stopped the jeep and observed that no traffic was approaching on his right. He was unable to see to his left, so he advanced slowly, blew his horn, gradually turning to his left. As soon as he was able to see to his left he saw a motorcar approaching from the North. He halted the jeep at once; but the right side of the motorcar gave the right bumper of the jeep a glancing blow. This blow deflected the motorcar's course and it ended up with its left front wheel in the ditch at the opposite side of the road. It will be seen that I place no reliance on the evidence of Stella Pierre that the jeep came out of the minor road at a very fast rate. I gathered from her evidence that she had already passed the junction walking in a southerly direction, that she had her back to the accident, and that she turned round and run back “to see if anybody died in the car”.

3 The motorcar belongs to the plaintiff Auguste and he was driving it at the time. It was badly damaged; and he suffered financial loss owing to its not being available for hire for a period. In the present action he sues Benjamin for compensation, alleging that Benjamin negligently drove and controlled the jeep and that this neglect was the cause of the damage. The particulars given of negligence were:

• (i) driving into a major road from a bye-road,

• (ii) driving too fast,

• (iii) failing to keep any or sufficient look-out,

• (iv) failing to give any or sufficient warning of approach,

• (v) failing to stop, swerve, or to manage the said motor jeep to avoid the said collision.

4 The facts, which I have found, exonerate Benjamin from all these particulars of negligence except that one, which alleges that he, failed to manage the jeep so as to avoid the collision. On this day at this corner, the course of perfect prudence would have been for Benjamin to have asked his passenger to alit and to advance into the main road to ascertain whether any vehicle was approaching from the north. Failing this, he should have steered the jeep as close as possible to the left so as to leave as wide as possible a portion of the main road available for such a vehicle. An examination of...