Reid v Lucombe

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 08 November 1967
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 29
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 158 of 1967
• Date: 08 November 1967

Supreme Court

Bishop, J.

No. 158 of 1967

Reid

and

Lucombe

Appearances:

E. H. Giraudy for the plaintiff

Defendant in person

Damages - Negligence — Plaintiff claimed damages from defendant for negligent driving — Court held that the plaintiff had not proved the particulars of negligence — Doctrine of res ipsa loquitar applied — damages of $250.00 awarded.

Bishop, J.

1 Cecil Reid, a builder of Castries has filed a declaration in which he has claimed special damages of three hundred and ninety-three dollars and sixty cents, and general damages, from Garnet Lucombe, Clerk, of Castries, for negligent driving of a motorcar H. 140.

2 In the declaration of the plaintiff specifically pleads res ipsa loquitur.

3 The plaintiff has also alleged in the declaration particulars of negligence as follows:

• a. “drove at excessive speed;

• b. failed to keep a proper look out;

• c. failed to apply his brake in time or at all to avoid the collision”.

4 Particulars of special damages, which were itemised in the declaration, were amended with leave of the Court today to correct the figure $150.30 to $150.50 and to include another item namely “to pay headlamp parts $15.00. Further amendment to the claim to delete the words “the sum of $250” was also granted.

5 The defendant neither entered appearance nor sought leave to do so, and on the 24 ^th July 1968 the Registrar's certificate of the fact that the defendant did not appear and that default had been entered against him, was filed.

6 Inscription for proof and hearing was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the same, day, i.e. 24 ^th July In support of the allegation in the declaration, plaintiff's counsel led evidence from the plaintiff and one witness, Iona Reid. They were cross-examined by the defendant, who by virtue of Article 282 of the Code of Civil Procedure was permitted to cross-examine them, but was not allowed to give evidence or to produce witnesses.

7 I am satisfied that the plaintiff has not proved the particulars of negligence mentioned in the declaration, but that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied in the circumstances set out in the evidence.

8 With reference to the damages established, I am satisfied from the evidence and perusal of the exhibits produced that the plaintiff is entitled to recover following loss of use of the car, the sum of two hundred and four dollars which represent seventeen days at twelve dollars a day...