Jadiah Pierre v Shana Matoorah Willie

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Pariagsingh, J
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J1218-1
• Docket Number: Case Number: SLUHCV2021/0441
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)

Between:

Jadiah Pierre

Claimant

and

Shana Matoorah Willie

Defendant

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice Alvin Pariagsingh

Case Number: SLUHCV2021/0441

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Appearances:

Mr. Alvin St. Clair for the Claimant

Ms. Cleopatra Mc Donald and Ms. Laurène Abboud for the Defendant

Claim in negligence for special damages, general damages, interest and costs

Pariagsingh, J

1 — On November 4, 2021, the Claimant filed his Claim Form and Statement of Case, alleging the Defendant caused him loss and damage through her negligent driving of vehicle registration number 9235.

THE CLAIM:

2 The Claimant, a 29-year-old construction worker, was riding his motorcycle (registration number 3339) on June 15, 2021, when he alleges that the Defendant, who had parked her vehicle near Dame Pearlette Louisy Primary School, pulled out and collided with him. This caused the Claimant to lose control and crash into a drain.

3 As a result, the Claimant suffered severe injuries: a leg amputation, fractured femur (requiring surgery), a scar, and a dislocated collarbone. His motorcycle, worth $10,000.00 before the accident, was totaled. Additionally, he incurred medical expenses, loss of income and earning capacity, as he was unable to work following the accident. At the time, the Claimant was employed by Applied Construction Ltd, earning $90.00 daily, and was also part of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program in Canada, where he earned CAD$1,700.00 per month.

4 Beyond physical injury, the Claimant lost his independence, relies on crutches or assistance for mobility, and can no longer engage in activities like gardening or motorcycle riding. His psychological state was also affected, including disrupted sleep patterns and a diminished social and love life. He seeks the following reliefs:

• 1. Special damages of $21,801.25 plus additional expenses;

• 2. General damages for loss of earnings and earning capacity;

• 3. Interest;

• 4. Costs.

DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM:

5 The Defendant denied responsibility and blamed the Claimant's negligence. She stated that on the day of the accident, she was driving behind a stationary white car and, after checking her mirrors and ensuring no vehicles were approaching from behind, she began to overtake it. As she was pulling alongside the stationary car, she heard a noise from the Claimant's motorcycle, which was attempting to overtake her vehicle. The Claimant accelerated and collided with her vehicle's rear-view mirror, which detached. She stopped her vehicle, and the Claimant lost control of his motorcycle, veering off the road and hitting a streetlight pole. The Defendant claimed the collision was unavoidable, caused by the Claimant's attempt to overtake both her vehicle and the stationary one.

6 The Defendant argued that any injury or loss suffered by the Claimant was caused by his own negligence, as he knowingly accepted the risk by attempting to overtake.

7 The Defendant also filed a counterclaim, alleging damages from the Claimant's negligence, as well as anxiety and stress. She claimed $7,156.60 in financial loss, including insured and uninsured damages, and sought the following reliefs:

• 1. Special damages of $7,156.60 with interest at 6% per annum from June 15, 2021, to payment;

• 2. General damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity;

• 3. Interest at the court's discretion;

• 4. Costs;

• 5. Any other relief the court deems fit.

REPLY TO DEFENCE AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM:

8 The Claimant filed a reply, reaffirming his version of events and denying negligence. Regarding the counterclaim, he denied responsibility for any damages the Defendant incurred, asserting they were directly caused by her negligent driving.

THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL:

9 Five witness statements were filed in support of the Claimant, including those from the Claimant himself, his sister Malachia Pierre, mother Lera Pierre, sister Christencia Pierre-Joseph, and girlfriend Christin Louis. Lera Pierre did not testify at trial, so her statement was not considered.

Claimant's Witness Statement and Cross Examination:

10 The Claimant's statement echoed the content of his pleadings. The Court was not impressed with the Claimant as a witness. The Court found him to be evasive at times and although he attempted to stick to a narrative, his obvious annoyance at certain questions and vague answers left the Court feeling less confident about accepting his evidence as the truth.

11 The Court was also fortified in its view that the Claimant has skewed his evidence in a particular way to suppress relevant evidence, when at the site visit, the Court was invited by the Claimant himself (on the record of the site visit) to view photographs and contemporaneous video evidence, none of which was put into evidence by him.

12 The Court does not accept the Claimant's evidence of how he says the accident occurred.

Witness Statement of Malachia Pierre

13 Malachia Pierre's evidence only went to damages. She outlined the changes to her life after the Claimant's accident. From July 2021, she took on financial responsibility for the Claimant's daughter, spending $500.00 monthly on her transportation, food, and personal supplies. She also visited the Claimant daily after work to assist with his care and household tasks. The Court found her to be an honest witness.

Witness Statement of Christencia Pierre-Joseph

14 Christencia Pierre-Joseph's evidence also only went to damages. She detailed events after the accident. She stated that the Defendant visited the hospital on June 15, 2021, confessed to overtaking without checking for oncoming vehicles, and apologized repeatedly, even fainting due to distress. As the Claimant's eldest sister, she was responsible for the decision to amputate his leg, which caused her significant stress. She also took on daily responsibilities, including bringing breakfast to the hospital, assisting with his care, buying medications, and covering her nephew's school expenses.

15 I do not accept her evidence about a contemporaneous admission of any liability by the Defendant. I accept the Defendant's version of the conversation at the hospital. In my view, such a material fact ought to have been pleaded so it could be frontally addressed as part of the party's case and not find itself into a witness statement at which time, there was no opportunity to deny it.

Witness Statement of Christin Louis

16 Christin Louis's evidence only went to damages. She shared the challenges of living with a disabled partner. She had to adjust to managing the Claimant's medication, meals, and wound care while working a full-time job. In addition, she contributed to household duties, medical supplies, and family expenses. These responsibilities affected her mentally and strained their relationship. She expressed a desire for compensation for her losses and suffering. The Court accepted her evidence generally and found her to be a witness of the truth.

Defendant's Evidence

17 The Defendant was the sole witness for her case. Her statement aligned with her pleadings regarding the incident. She recalled seeing the Claimant's leg bleeding heavily and in an awkward position after the collision, prompting her to call an ambulance and the police. The Claimant was taken to the hospital, and the police recorded details of the accident.

18 The Defendant later visited the hospital but did not see the Claimant. She spoke with the Claimant's sister, who gave her contact information. The Defendant and her husband made periodic calls to check on the Claimant's recovery, offering assistance. Eventually, the Claimant stopped responding to their calls.

19 On September 21, 2021, the parties visited the accident scene with Police Constable 815, where they provided their accounts. A report was generated on January 12, 2022.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

20 At the start of the proceedings, I asked if there were any housekeeping matters. The Defendant's counsel made two oral applications: the first sought to strike out portions of the Claimant's witness statement, and the second sought permission to comment on evidence in the statement of Christencia Pierre-Joseph. The substance of her statement was that the Defendant made admissions of liability at the hospital. Both applications were refused, and my reasons for doing so are outlined below.

21 On January 23, 2024, the matter was scheduled for pre-trial review. By that date, the Claimant's witness statement had been served on the Defendant 420 days prior. Term 3 of the order issued on that date required any objections to evidence to be filed at least 14 days before the pre-trial review. This gave the Defendant an additional 41 days to raise objections. However, no objections were made by the Defendant within this period, including to the Claimant's expert report.

22 The purpose of strict case management, with penalties for non-compliance, is to prevent delays such as the oral application to strike out. The Defendant had over 420 days to object but failed to do so, and then sought to raise objections on the day of trial, in violation of the court order.

23 Allowing the oral application would be an attempt to bypass the sanctions of the order without seeking relief. The Defendant's failure to object did not mean the evidence became admissible, it simply meant that the Defendant had not assisted the court in identifying evidence that should not be admitted. The weight to be attached to the evidence would also be a matter for the court.

24 In conclusion, granting the oral application would allow further case management at trial, forcing the Claimant to address objections that should have been made months earlier. Therefore, I refused the application.

25 The court also questioned the admissibility of certain paragraphs in the Claimant's witness statements. The Claimant's...