Heggie v Weekes et Al
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bruno, J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1965 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1965 HC 1 |
| Docket Number | Civil Suit No. 39 of 1973 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 01 January 1965 |
High Court
Bruno, J.
Civil Suit No. 39 of 1973
W. Cenac for plaintiff
Giraudy for first and second defendants
S. D'Auvergne for third defendant.
Damages - Personal injury — Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury suffered as a result of the negligent driving of the second defendant — Plaintiff suffered injury to his right hand — Court held that the first defendant was wholly to blame for the accident — General damages of $2,500.00 and special damages of $166.00 awarded.
On the first day of a weekend holiday in the State, Mr. Walter Heggie, Assistant Area Manager, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Barbados, was involved in a motor mishap.
It was on the 13 th November 1971, that Walter Heggie (hereinafter called the plaintiff) arrived in the State from Barbados in company with a Mr. Rintoil. Later the same day the plaintiff and Mr. Rintoil along with some twenty other passengers were taken on a round-the-coast drive in an omnibus driven by Hector St. Ville (hereinafter called the third defendant).
It was on their return trip to Halcyon Beach Hotel, where the trip began, that misfortune befell the plaintiff. It was then about 6.30 p.m.
The omnibus (sometimes referred to as a truck or lorry) in which the plaintiff was a passenger, was involved in an accident with a motor lorry owned by George Francis (hereinafter called the Second Defendant and driven by Willie Weekes (hereinafter called the first defendant).
The action now engaging my attention stems from this accident.
The plaintiff sustained injury to his right hand and alleges that the collision was caused by the negligence of the first defendant as the servant of the second defendant. Alternatively he attributes the collision to the negligence of the third defendant or both the third defendant and first defendant as the servant or agent of the second defendant.
It is not in dispute that the first defendant was the agent or servant of the second defendant.
And the plaintiff is claiming special damages, general damages and costs.
It might be well first to dispose of the question to whether the parties were properly joined as defendants to this action.
Since both the first and third defendants were placing blame squarely on each other for the accident it seemed not only reasonable but advisable that the plaintiff should have joined them both and the owner of the vehicle driven by the first defendant as defendants to the action.
I shall, after discussing the evidence, endeavour to find, as I must, on whom liability must be placed for the accident.
It seems unfortunate that the case was starved of evidence by persons who might have been of assistance to me in assessing the facts.
I look now at the plaintiff's case. I deal first with his evidences He was one of twenty-two passengers in motor omnibus registration number 3383 driven by the third defendant on the 13 th November 1971. He was sitting at the right end of the third seat of the vehicle, which was returning to Halcyon Beach Hotel, after a round-the-island trip.
Plaintiff was ensuring his safety by holding on to one of the stanchions, which held up the roof of the bus. As a result the knuckles of his right hand were turned outward.
The vehicle in which he was, was moving slowly or almost at a standstill when he received a blow to his right hand. He was soon to discover that it was caused by a motor lorry that, to use his own language, had “flashed past and collided with the bus” in which he was.
That vehicle was travelling in the opposite direction. It was moving “swiftly”. It came to a standstill some 20 to 25 yards at the rear of the bus. The third defendant left the bus and walked to the lorry. He returned to the bus and made yet another trip to the lorry. On the second occasion he was accompanied by a man named Patrick Lewis, who was in charge of the trip._
By that time plaintiff's right hard was numb and bleeding. He was in great pain. He was taken to the Halcyon Beach Hotel by the third defendant. There he was attended to by Dr. King, who ordered him to the hospital where he was attended to and discharged.
The plaintiff returned to Barbados on the next day (14 th November 1971). He was still in pain. Medical attention was necessary. He secured the services of a Dr. Webster there. For aver a period of three to four weeks he paid frequent visits to Dr. Webster.
As a direct result of the injury, one of the fingers of the plaintiff's right hand has been shortened and his grip with the right hand has been affected.
The plaintiff, who is a golfer, complains that his grip on the golf club has been impaired as a result of the accident. In addition he says that he has been left with a lump and a scar on the said right hand.
His claim for special damages is based on the medical attention provided him by Dr. Webster.
On his own admission, he was not deprived of his salary by his employers and consequently the sum of $700 for loss of earnings for one week included in the claim for special damages was understandably abandoned.
A significant piece of his evidence was that the vehicle 3383 was on the left hand side of the road at the time of the accident.
He called Dr. Ronald Gordon Webster of Barbados to support his evidence regarding the injury he had sustained.
The doctor saw the plaintiff on the 15 th November 1971. At that time the wound had already been sutured but there was not only swelling but some infection and plaintiff was in pain in the region of the base of the fourth metacarpal bone of the right hand. There was also a shortening of the bone. An X-ray examination confirmed a fracture of the bone.
According to the doctor the wound took some three weeks to heal. The doctor saw the patient on the 28 th April 1975, — the day before he testified — and he said that he saw then evidence of the shortening of the fourth metacarpal bone and the presence of the scar of the laceration.
He said too that there seemed to be some pain at the site of the original fracture when the plaintiff grips tightly and that this would have some adverse effect an his normal life in playing games requiring the use of instruments and where tight grip was necessary.
He assessed permanent disability at between 5 and 10 per cent.
Under cross-examination he stated that “for all practical purposes the injury would affect the plaintiff's life to a small degree”.
Another witness called by the plaintiff was Ormond Reece an Assistant Superintendent of Police. As a result of a report he had received at about 7 p.m. on the 13 th November 197l, he went to Halcyon Beach Hotel where he saw bus 3383. In describing the vehicle he said it was held up by uprights all along the sides.
There he also saw the third defendant who made a report to him. At the time Dr. King was attending to plaintiff.
The third defendant gave him the registered number of a vehicle as the result of which he saw the second defendant. It was not before the 17 th November 1971, that he saw the first defendant whose name had been given to him by the second defendant.
In the presence of the first defendant, the third defendant reported to him how the accident had occurred. He said how he saw a vehicle approaching him in a zigzagging manner, of how he brought his bus to a standstill as close as possible to his left side of the road and that the on-coming vehicle pulled away and the rear drifted and struck the off side of his bus, injuring three persons. That vehicle was 4488 driven by the first defendant.
The first defendant then gave his version. He admitted that both vehicles were travelling in opposite directions. He said he drove his lorry to his left side of the road, actually putting the left side wheels on the verge and as the bus passed it struck the side of the lorry.
Both drivers accompanied the Superintendent to the scene of the accident. They disagreed as to the spot where the accident occurred but yellow paint flakes similar to the colour of the bus were scattered about the roadway pointed out by the third defendant. There were no such flakes at the point indicated by the first defendant.
The officer took measurements. Width of the road at the point shown by the first defendant was 24 feet while at the paint indicated by the third defendant it measured 19 feet. Vehicle 4488 was 7 feet 8 inches wide while the width of bus 3383 was 7 feet 3 inches.
Neither the Counsel for the defendants cross-examined the officer.
It would seem to me that the evidence for the third defendant Ient much support to the case for the plaintiff. I deal now with his evidence
At the material time he states that he was driving his bus on the Castries Gros Islet Road at the rate of about 5 miles per hour as he had just moved off after coming to a half at a stop sign. He was then on his side of the road. He saw a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction on his (third defendant's) left side. As the vehicle drew very close to him he stopped. That vehicle pulled hard away but its rear brushed against the right side of the bus and it continued some 30 to 35 yards before coming to a standstill. There were cries from a passenger in the bus. The third defendant walked to the lorry and there; he saw the first defendant behind the steering wheel. He invited. The first defendant to accompany him back to his bus “to see the damage he had done to my bus and people on board.
According to him the first defendant merely said “let us make it”.
Again he insisted on the first defendant coming out see the damage but the invitation was not accepted.
One of the two other occupants of the lorry apparently obliged for he accompanied the third defendant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial