Nelson et Al v St. Omer

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: St.Bernard, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Cecil Lewis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1972
• Neutral Citation: LC 1972 CA 10
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1971
• Date: 02 June 1972

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Cecil Lewis, J.A., Bernard, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1971

Nelson et al

and

St. Omer

K. Foster for appellants.

K. Monplaisir for respondent.

Damages - Damage to vehicle sustained during traffic collision — Quantum.

St.Bernard, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the judgment and an award of $4,020 damages for negligence arising out of a motor collision on the 20th June, 1970. The respondent's vehicle, H 2561 was being driven by one Denis Deligny and appellant's vehicle H 2845 was being driven by Andrew Nelson, one of the appellants. Neither of the drivers gave evidence at the trial. The respondent's driver was absent and the appellant, Andrew Nelson, although he was present was precluded from so doing as the appellants did not enter appearance to the writ of summons and, on the 4th February, 1971, at the request of the respondent's solicitors a certificate of foreclosure was granted in accordance with article 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 243 of the Laws of St. Lucia.

2 The only eye-witness who gave evidence of the collision was one Anthony Antoine. He stated that he was seated beside the driver Deligny as they were returning from Palm Beach to Castries. Another vehicle H 401, was parked near the Ju-c factory.” The respondent's driver then parked his vehicle on the other side of the road and was speaking to one Mrs. Sonny when the appellant's vehicle crashed into the parked truck.

3 Armond Reece Inspector of Police arrived on the scene soon after the accident and both drivers gave an account of the collision fin the presence of each other. Andrew Nelson told him that he was driving towards Gros-Islet and saw vehicle H 401 ahead of him. The driver of that vehicle gave him the signal to overtake but as he was about to do so he saw vehicle H 2561 approaching from the opposite direction. He was unable to “pull back” behind vehicle H 2561 and there was a collision. Deligny said he saw the two vehicles approach a curve. Vehicle H 2845 was attempting to overtake. When he saw this he pulled to his left and stopped. The driver of H 2845 was unable to pull back to his left with safety and there was a collision.

4 The trial judge in his judgment stated –

“Regardless of which view of the facts and circumstances is accepted, it is my finding that the defendant Andrew Nelson is wholly to blame for the collision.”

5 He further stated that there was a duty of care, on the driver of the overtaking vehicle, but he acted only upon the signal and so failed to exercise reasonable care by looking for himself to ensure whether he could overtake and get back to his proper side with safety. The trial judge, however, made the following findings of fact:

“It is my belief that the vehicle H 401 and the vehicle H 2845 were travelling along the road in the direction of Gros-Islet. The former was ahead of the latter. At the same time, vehicle H 2561 was...