Thomas v Electricity Services Ltd
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Bishop, J. |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1968 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1968 HC 30 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Date | 08 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 93 of 1967 |
West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)
Bishop, J.
No. 93 of 1967
E.H. Giraudy for plaintiff.
M. Gordon for defendant.
Negligence - Causation
The plaintiff, the Administratrix of the succession of the estate of the deceased claimed damages from the default company. The plaintiff alleged that the deceased stepped on a naked wire lying across a public road which caused the death of the deceased. On the question whether such action amounted to negligence
Held: The wire was exposed for twenty and a half hours before the deceased came into contact with it. This amounted to negligence. The defendant company failed to establish that it was unable by reasonable means to prevent the electrocution of the deceased. Order made that the plaintiff was entitled to pecuniary compensation excluding any consideration other than the support of six children named. Assessment made of a sum for the support of each child from the time of the death of their father to age sixteen. Judgment given for the plaintiff. The sum of $14,120 assessed as support for the children.
Mina Thomas qua Administratix of the Succession of the late Lucius Thomas, widow, of Castries in this Island, and acting for the dependants of the said Lucius Thomas, is the plaintiff in this case in which she has claimed damages from the St. Lucia Electricity Services Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Laws of St. Lucia, and hereinafter referred to as the defendant.
In this declaration filed on the 31 st May 1967, the plaintiff alleged that on the 1 st December 1966, at about 7.30 a.m. Lucius Thomas, a laborer 30 years old, father of eight minor illegitimate children living in this island, was walking along Union High Road in the Quarter of Gros Islet when he stepped upon “a naked wire which was lying upon and across the said road through the defendant's negligence” from 28 th November 1966. The wire which was electrically charged and under the control of the defendant caused the death of Lucius Thomas.
It is also stated in the declaration that “as a result of the defendant's negligence… the deceased's minor children have suffered damage. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims the sum of $50,000 damage for negligence…”
On the 12 th June 1967, the solicitors for the defendant entered appearance, and following a demand for pleas (filed on the 2 nd December 1967) the solicitors for the defendant then filed a defence on the 5 th December 1967. In this defence it is stated:
“3. It is admitted that between the hours of 4.00 p.m. on the 30 th November 1966, and 8.00 a.m. on the 1 st of December, 1966 at Union High Road in the Quarter of Gros Islet, Lucius Thomas met his death as a result of coming into contact with a live electrically charged wire, the property of the defendant and under the defendant's control which said wire had been placed across the road by the defendant at a height in excess of eighteen feet but through no fault of the defendant was lying upon and across the said road at about 8.00 a.m. on the said 30 th November 1966.
4. The defendant denies that it is guilty of the alleged or any negligence or that the said wire had been lying upon and across the said road from Monday 28 th November 1966, to Thursday 1 st December 1966.
5. Further or alternatively the said live electrically charged wire was lying on the road as a result of it being snapped when an extraordinarily large crate on a truck owned by a third party came into contact with the said wire.”
Inscription for proof and hearing was filed in the Registry on the 16 th May 1968. Hearing occupied the 23 rd and 24 th days of July 1968.
At the commencement of the hearing, leave was granted to amend the declaration so as to substitute the words “General damages for negligence” for the words “the sum of $50,000 damage for negligence”. Leave was also granted to amend the defence filed on 5 th December 1967, and the order of this court was that the amended pleadings should be filed in the Registry not later than the 30 th July 1968. At the close of the case for the plaintiff, leave was granted following an application by counsel for the defendant, to further amend the defence at para. 5. It was ordered that the amendment to paragraph 5 should be filed “at the same time as the earlier amendments granted i.e. not later than 30 th July 1968.
The solicitors for the plaintiff filed an amended declaration on the 27 th July 1968. An amended defence was never filed and I have therefore considered the case from the pleadings on record at 30 th July 1968.
In support of the allegations made by the plaintiff, counsel for the plaintiff called Mina Thomas, mother of the deceased, Albert Lambert a laborer who was with Lucius Thomas on the date of his death, Florrie Elford, Elvira Blondelle the mothers of five children of whom Lucius was alleged to be father, Anels Charles and Alexander Jn Baptiste, laborers who testified about the presence of electric wire on the road.
Mina Thomas the mother of Lucius Thomas testified that her son was unmarried and was 31 years old at the date of his death on 1 st December 1966. She explained that she had the custody and care of Theresa Alexander, daughter of the deceased. She said that Lucius gave her between three dollars and five dollars per week for the support of this child. She also expressed her opinion that Lucius enjoyed good health throughout his life, and though the latter part was spent at the house of his keeper, he always took his meals at her i.e. his mother.
The testimony of Mina Thomas was not seriously challenged in the cross-examination by counsel for the defendant and I accept it as true.
Florrie Elford, a laborer from the Union area, testified that the deceased Lucius Thomas, was the father of her child Rosanna (born on 8 th April 1957) whom he supported voluntarily with weekly payments of between two dollars and fifty-cents and three dollars.
The cross-examination of this witness seemed to be designed to show that there was a great difference in the ages of the deceased and of the witness, the latter being much older than the former, and further that the contributions to the support of the child were not made regularly.
The replies under cross-examination showed that the deceased gave the witness money for the child's support whenever he could do so. I am unable to attach any relevant significance to the alleged disparity in the ages of the two parties at the time of the birth of Rosanna. I accept that the deceased was the father of Rosanna and that he contributed to her support within the limits of his means.
Elvira Blondelle, a laborer, gave evidence that Lucius Thomas, the deceased, was the father of her four children Patrick, Aidan, Lucy and Olix. Birth certificates of Patrick and Aidan were produced as exhibits. These showed Patrick to be born on 17 th May 1958, and Aidan on 4 th July 1960. The witness also gave evidence about the ages of the other two children. Her evidence in this respect remained uncontradicted. It established that Lucy would be six years old in September 1968 and Olix four years old in November 1968. Elvira Blondelle testified about the extent to which the deceased support these four children; she said that when he could afford to he paid her five dollars or six dollars either weekly for fortnightly.
Cross-examination of this witness merely elicited that the deceased did not make regular contributions to the support of her children because there were occasions when he was not working for money but cultivating his own land.
The evidence as to what happened on the morning of the 1 st December 1966 was given by Albert Lambert. He explained that four of them were walking along the Union High Road on their way to work as laborers on a building. Lucius Thomas was barefooted and while walking on the road he, Lucius Thomas, stepped on the electric wire which was about two: feet from the left hand side of the road. When he was cross-examined this witness explained what happened, in the following words: “It was when he stepped on it he then grabbed it to pull it away but he could not pull it away. I cannot say if he put his hand underneath his foot. I just saw him bend”. The witness also explained that the wire was removed from the hands of the deceased by pulling it away with a piece of wood
Cross-examination of the witness also dealt with the earnings of the deceased on the jobs at which they were working at the time.
The other witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff gave evidence about the wire. Like those before them, these witnesses were laborers, and with the exception of Albert Lambert, they preferred to give their testimony in patois because of a very limited knowledge of the English language.
According to witness Charles he first saw an electric wire on the Union High Road on Monday 28 th November 1966. It was then lying on the grass verge on the right hand side of the road “when you leave Castries”. Then, on Thursday 1 st December 1966, according to him “when I saw it, it was on the pitched surface of the road”.
Under cross-examination he showed doubt about the wire. He did not know if the wire he saw on the Monday 28 th was an electric wire, or if it was the same wire that he saw on Thursday 1 st December 1966.
He agreed with counsel for the defendant that the wire he saw on the Monday might have been a different piece of wire from that he saw on the Thursday, and that the wire was in a different position on these two days.
When he was re-examined the witness seemed to change his opinion yet again and expressed the view that the wire he saw on Thursday did not appear to be a different wire from that he saw on the Monday.
Alexander Jn Baptiste gave evidence that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial