Clairmont v Goodman & Jagroup

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Peterkin, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1979
• Neutral Citation: LC 1979 CA 2
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1979
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 23 May 1979

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J., Peterkin, J.A., Berridge, J.A. (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1979

Clairmont

and

Goodman & Jagroup

Appearances:

V. Cooper, Esq., for the appellant.

E.H. Giraudy, Esq., for the first respondent.

B. Edwards for the second respondent.

Tort - Negligence — Liability

Peterkin, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the judgment of Renwick, J. awarding $2,000.00 damages to the first-named respondent and $1,770 damages to the second-named respondent in an action for negligence arising out of a collision between two vehicles — H283 owned by the appellant and driven by Norman Hippolyte, and van 1273 owned and driven by the second-named respondent. The first-named respondent was a passenger in van 1273.

2 The grounds of appeal are:

• (1) The decision is altogether against the weight of the evidence.

• (2) The finding that there were major roads at the place of the accident is erroneous.

• (3) The damages awarded to the plaintiff are in any event excessive.

• (4) The appellant was not guilty of negligence.

3 The collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle H283 driven by Hippolyte along the Vieux Fort Secondary School Road from East to West entered the St. Jude High Road without stopping and collided with van 1273 which was being driven by the respondent Jagroup along that road in a southerly direction. The Vieux Fort Secondary School Road is a side road. It ends at the intersection with the St. Jude High Road which is the main road where it forms a “T”, junction. It has been submitted,

• (i) that the trial judge erred in referring to the St. Jude High Road as a “major” road, and

• (ii) that the evidence showed that the respondent Jagroup had driven his vehicle in a negligent manner.

4 Three witnesses testified as to the facts of the collision namely the two respondents Goodman and Jagroup and the appellant's driver Hippolyte.

5 Goodman's evidence put briefly is that the appellant's van came out of the Secondary School Road and did not stop at the junction and that it was coming also with a little bit of speed, to use her own words. She went on to say that the vehicle collided with Jagroup's van. She also said that Jagroup was not driving at all fast.

6 Jagroup's evidence was that when he reached about 50 ft from the junction of the Secondary School Road he blew his horn and when he saw appellant's van coming he stopped and that the vehicle hit him so hard that it threw his own vehicle across the road. He went on to say that he, Jagroup was driving about 20 miles an hour and the appellant's van...