Cletus Dolor Claimant v (1) Alcide Antoine (2) Ashley Dolor (3) Cool Breeze Jeep Rental Company Ltd A company duly incorporated under the Laws of St. Lucia and having its registered office at New Development in the Quarter of Soufriere in the Island of St. Lucia Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | HARIPRASHAD-CHARLES J |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 2004 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2004] ECSC J0130-1 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2001/0555 |
| Date | 30 January 2004 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2001/0555
Mr. Peter I. Foster, Ms. Estelle George with him for the Claimant
Mrs. Kim C. St. Rose for the First-named Defendant
Mrs. Esther Greene-Ernest for the Second-named Defendant
PERSONAL INJURIES ARISING OUT OF MOTOR VEHICULAR ACCIDENT…WHO WAS LIABLE…NO. 1 OR NO. 2 DEFENDANT OR BOTH…DRIVERS HUGGING THE CENTER LINE…CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE…WAS EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN BY EITHER OR BOTH…DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES…CASES OF ALPHONSE v RAMNAUTH AND FENTON AUGUSTE v FRANCIS NEPTUNE RELIED UPON …DAMAGED FOR PAIN & SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITIES…LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS…NURSING CARE… WHO MUST PAY COSTS?
This claim arose out of a road accident which occurred on Saturday, 18th December, 1999 on the Roseau Highway, Anse La Raye when a Suzuki Jeep driven by No. 2 Defendant, Ashley Dolor (Ashley) and owned by No. 3 Defendant was in collision with a Motor Pickup, Registration No. FAR 102 driven by No. 1 Defendant, Alcide Antoine. The Claimant, Cletus Dolor was one of the passengers on board the Jeep driven by his younger brother, Ashley. The other passenger was his twin brother, Marcellinus. The Dolor brothers are acrobatic dancers. They were returning to their home in Soufriere when the vehicle in which they were traveling got involved in an accident.
As a result of the said collision, Cletus who was then 27 years old, was converted from an acrobatic dancer into a quadriplegic. He brought this claim seeking damages for personal injuries suffered.
The collision occurred at about two in the morning. There were no street lamps in the area and visibility would have been dependent by means of lights from the vehicles. The vehicles were traveling in opposite directions on what was a straight and smooth piece of road. The road was 19 feet wide at the point of impact, leaving little room for each vehicle in each carriageway. There were reflectors along the center of the road but not where the accident occurred.
The two drivers gave diametrically opposed evidence as to how the accident occurred. But it is not disputed that the front of the Jeep came in contact with the motor pickup hitting both the front and back tyres but not the body of the pickup. The right mirror got broken in the process. With the impact, the front tyre got deflated and stuck under the pickup. The back tyre flew out, the whole axel cut off and the front tie rod end got broken. The pickup dragged forward in the road then turned in the opposite direction. The Jeep which is a relatively light vehicle was thrown out of control to the left side of the road off the road then overturned on the right side of the road on a banana tree.
Mr. Antoine was injured. He received a blow to his right eye and he could not see out of that eye. The two passengers on board his vehicle escaped unhurt. The other driver, Ashley was not injured. His two brothers, Cletus and Marcellinus were passengers on board his Jeep. They were both asleep at the time of the accident and saw nothing. Marcellinus, seated in the front passenger seat of the Jeep escaped unhurt while Cletus received serious injuries and remained unconscious until the following day. When he regained consciousness, he was at Victoria Hospital.
The Jeep was damaged beyond repair. In other words, it was a write-off. The motor pickup was extensively damaged but repairable.
On 27th June 2001, Cletus commenced these proceedings against both Defendants claiming damages for personal injuries. He alleged negligence on the part of the Second Defendant, Ashley Dolor or alternatively, negligence on the part of the First Defendant, Alcide Antoine or alternatively, by both Ashley and Mr. Antoine. Cool Breeze Jeep Rental was also joined as the Third Defendant but the claim was not pursued against the Company. In his defence, Mr. Antoine says that the accident was all Ashley's fault. Ashley, in his defence filed on 3rd May 2002, denied negligence and says that it was all Mr. Antoine's fault. Each Defendant relied on particulars of negligence in standard form.
The Police were informed of the accident and arrived some 20 minutes later. P.C. 2 Gillpin Langellier was the investigating officer. When he arrived, Mr. Antoine was the only driver present. Mr. Antoine identified himself as the driver of the pick-up. He gave the Officer a brief explanation of how the accident occurred. He said that 'he was driving up the highway on his side and saw a light coming down at him and he heard a "bam" and got a knock on his eye as he tried to pull off the road.' Mr. Antoine also indicated the point of impact to the Officer who used spray paint to mark off the spot.
Mr. Antoine complained about the pain in his right eye so Officer Langellier took him to Victoria Hospital. At the hospital, the Officer met Ashley who identified himself as the driver of the Jeep. Ashley gave a brief explanation as to how the accident occurred. He said that 'he was coming down the Roseau Highway on his side. The opposite driver was coming up on his side. Apparently when he arrived by him, he (Mr. Antoine) ended up hitting his (Ashley) vehicle on the right side and the Jeep ended up going off course.'
Later that said morning at about 11.00 a.m., Ashley returned to the scene with Officer Langellier. Mr. Antoine was not present. Officer Langellier proceeded to take measurements in the presence of Ashley who positively identified a point of impact to him. Officer Langellierrecollected that it was the exact spot that Mr. Antoine had identified to him and which he had marked with spray paint. Officer Langellier observed a small amount of glass on the road around that point and tyre marks going from about that point to where the vehicles ended up. The point of impact was in the lane in which Mr. Antoine was traveling. Officer Langellier later came to the conclusion that Ashley was responsible for the accident and eventually charged him with careless driving.
It is always difficult to decide a case like this where the evidence is so strikingly different. However, the Court was fortunate to hear from Officer Langellier who was called by the Claimant as his witness and who, I have no reason to believe was partial to any of the parties. He stated that the collision took place on Mr. Antoine's side of the road, about two inches away from the imaginary white line. This is congruent with the measurements which he took. The width of the road at the point of impact was 19 feet and the point of impact to the left side of the road facing south was 9 feet 8 inches.
The cumulative effect of the evidence of both Mr. Antoine and his passenger, Mr. Urious Charles is that at the time of the collision, they were on their side of the road. Their evidence, though contradictory in certain aspects was clear as to two things. Firstly, that Ashley encroached in their lane and secondly, that about 20 feet away from their vehicle, the Jeep began to encroach into their lane at which time Mr. Antoine pulled further left to avoid the accident.
Ashley's evidence is that he was traveling along the Roseau Highway in the direction of Soufriere. He was on his left and proper side of the road. He became aware of another vehicle when he saw the headlamps approaching in the opposite direction heading towards Castries. When the vehicle got close to him, he heard a loud noise and felt an impact on the front right side of his vehicle. The impact threw his vehicle out of control. He said that after the accident, he saw that Mr. Antoine's vehicle had spacers which caused the tyres to project outward beyond that of the standard vehicle. This seems to be an afterthought because it is not pleaded in Ashley's particulars of negligence.
14. Under cross-examination by Ms. George for the Claimant, Ashley stated that he saw the other driver (Mr. Antoine) driving on his side of the road and he (Ashley) was driving on his side of the road. When he was cross-examined by Mrs. St. Rose for the First Defendant, he stated that he saw nothing unusual about the other vehicle and that he did not swerve his vehicle before the collision. He further stated under intense cross-examination:
"That morning I was driving down home when I saw a vehicle approaching. From a distance, I saw him coming round the bend. He was on his side of the road, driving normal. All of a sudden, I felt an impact and that is when I felt the vehicle rolling to the other side of the road and that is where it stopped in the banana field. I never saw the First Defendant leave his side of the road and come on my side. I only realized that something was wrong because of the impact. I ended up under the bananas on the First Defendant's side of the road. I was not in a hurry to get to Soufriere."
Ashley's account of the accident seems loose and open-ended. This is borne out at paragraph 4 of his witness statement and in particular, to the uncontroverted evidence of what he told Officer Langellier shortly after the accident. He said that 'he was coming down the Roseau Highway on his side. The opposite driver was coming up on his side.Apparently (my emphasis) when he arrived by him, he (Mr. Antoine) ended up hitting his (Ashley) vehicle on the right side and the Jeep ended up going off course.'
16. On the totality of the evidence, I find as a fact that the collision took place on Mr. Antoine's side of the road. It logically followed that Ashley encroached in Mr. Antoine's lane as he himself admitted that he saw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gailius Mathurin Joachim Mathurin Claimants v Andrew Paul Defendant [ECSC]
...Francis Neptune7 is the authority on personal injuries and the facts are affined to the present case. There is also the case of Cletus Dolor v Alcide Dolor et al8, a recent judgment of this Court. 43 In Fenton Auguste, Singh J.A. in quoting precedents that Matthew J. relied on in coming to ......