Monlouis et Al v Ramjeawan

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 January 1967
• Neutral Citation: LC 1967 HC 2
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 6 of 1963
• Date: 10 January 1967

High Court

Bishop, J.

No. 6 of 1963

Monlouis et al

and

Ramjeawan

Appearances:

K. A. H. Foster for the plaintiffs

D. A. Mc. Namara for the defendant.

Tort - Negligence — Liability — Traffic accident.

Bishop, J.

1 Da Costa Monlouis and Gregory Dolcy the plaintiffs in the action, have claimed general damages from Michael Ramjeawan, the defendant in the action for injuries sustained by them as a result of alleged negligent driving of a motor vehicle on the part of the defendant.

2 There are two accounts of what took place, and indeed they seem to be almost completely contradictory in the essential features.

3 The plaintiffs stated in their account that between 2.00 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. on 23rd July, 1962 they were travelling on the motor cycle Number 751 along the Micoud-Dennery High Road in the direction of Vieux-Fort, at about 20 miles per hour. Monlouis was rider of the cycle and the plaintiff Dolcy was pillion passenger. While they were travelling on the straight part of an otherwise winding road, the motor vehicle T 1427 driven by Michael Ramjeawan at about 40 miles per hour in the opposite direction, travelled across the road towards them. The rider of the cycle left the road completely and moved to a position about thirty six inches off the road; and while travelling in that new position off the road the vehicle driven by the defendant still came towards them. It swerved away to its left but nevertheless the right rear part struck the plaintiffs and threw them and their cycle to the ground. The vehicle T 1427 continued on and finally came to a standstill across the road thirteen yards away, its left rear wheel nearer to the right side of the road than its left front wheel which was near the left side of the road. As a result of their fall the plaintiffs received abrasions and other injuries.

4 The account as related by the defendant and his witness was that the defendant was driving motor vehicle T 1427 along the Micoud-Dennery High Road in the direction of Castries at about 15 miles per hour and at about a foot from the left hand side of the road. While the vehicle T 1427 was negotiating one of the bends in this road — a left bend — the motor cycle No. 751 ridden by plaintiff Monlouis in the centre of the road approached at about 40 miles per hour. As the vehicles arrived at or near the middle of the bend the driver of T 1427 pulled his vehicle further to the left side of the road and on to the verge. The right handle bar of the cycle struck the right rear part of the vehicle T 1427 causing the rider and passenger to fall.

5 Certain other relevant facts which were stated in evidence were not disputed. It was agreed or not challenged that the vehicle T 1427, described at various times in the testimony as a van, a truck, a bus or a lorry, weighed about three tons and was between seven and eight feet wide, twelve feet high and twenty feet long; it was agreed that this vehicle was at that time one of the largest vehicles on the island. It remained unchallenged that the motor cycle was a six horse-power vehicle and that it was travelling uphill, while the other vehicle was travelling downhill at the moment of the collision. There was no disagreement of the fact that the plaintiffs fell and received injuries.

6 From an analysis of the testimony I am satisfied that the vehicle T 1427, which I shall hereafter refer to as a van, was being driven by the defendant downhill on the Micoud — Dennery High Road in the direction of Castries. It was approaching a left hand curve at a speed more nearly consistent with 15 miles per hour than with 40 miles per hour, and at a distance of about twelve inches from the left side of the road. I do not accept the evidence that this van was travelling at 40 miles per hour. Indeed it is difficult to believe that a three ton van travelling downhill and hitting a cyclist while in the act of pulling off of him would, moving at 40 miles per hour, cause such comparatively minor injuries to the plaintiffs and apparently no damage to the cycle. Further, the act of driving and swerving from right to left at 40 miles per hour and then coming to a halt — almost diagonally — across the road thirteen or so yards away, and this after striking a cyclist and passenger would, in my view, require more than ordinary skill with any vehicle and particularly with a vehicle large in size and dimensions for this island at that time. I do not accept the evidence that the van travelled across the road to the right and swerved so that its right rear part entirely left the road for a distance of thirty-six inches — The position the cyclist...