Hippolyte v Joseph and Augustin

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 112 of 1966
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 25 January 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Glasgow, J.

No. 112 of 1966

Hippolyte

and

Joseph and Augustin

Appearances:

I. D'Auvergne for plaintiff.

E.H. Giraudy for defendant.

Negligence - Traffic accident — Liability — The plaintiff was injured when he fell from a lorry driven by the second defendant. On the question whether the second defendant was liable in negligence.

Held: The accident was caused by the sole negligence of the second defendant. Judgment given for the plaintiff.

Glasgow, J.

1 In this action, the plaintiff claims special and general damages against the defendants for personal injuries alleged to have been caused to him by the negligent driving by the second defendant of motor lorry No. 1011 owned by the first defendant. The defendants denied both the negligence and the injuries complained of.

2 At the hearing of this action, three witnesses (including the plaintiff himself) gave evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, and one witness – the first defendant – gave evidence for the defence. The second defendant was not present in court.

3 The facts, as I found them, are as follows: On the 26 ^th April 1966, the second defendant was the servant of the first defendant acting in the course of his employment as driver of the first defendant's motor lorry No. 1011. The said lorry was being driven along the Vide Bouteille Road in the Quarter of Castries when the plaintiff, a retired police sergeant, signaled the second defendant to stop. The second defendant brought the lorry to a standstill. The first defendant was then sitting in the front seat of the lorry next to the second defendant. The plaintiff asked the second defendant whether he could convey some luggage for him. The second defendant asked the first whether he agreed and he first defendant said that he did. The first defendant told the plaintiff that the charge for conveying the luggage was three dollars. The second defendant drove the lorry near to a house a short distance from where the lorry had been stopped. Household effects including a cradle and a mattress were placed into the lorry by the plaintiff and other persons. The plaintiff then helped the first defendant to close the door at the back of the lorry. When that was done the first defendant told the plaintiff to get into the lorry at the back of the luggage. The plaintiff did so. The first defendant then entered the lorry and stood on the right of the plaintiff who was standing on the...