Lloyd Wisdom v Janet Johnson

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: ANDERSON. J.
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2002
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2002] 6 JJC 1101
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 11 June 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

SUIT NO: C.L. 1996/W. - 240

BETWEEN

LLOYD WISDOM

PLAINTIFF

AND

JANET JOHNSON

DEFENDANT

DAMAGES - Motor vehicle accident - Pain and suffering - Loss of amenities - Special damages

NEGLIGENCE - Minibus/Motor car collision - Oil on road - Defence of "inevitable accident" - Award of damages

ANDERSON. J

1 In this case, perhaps most unusually, most of the critical facts are agreed as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. There was a collision between the Plaintiff's Mazda minibus, and the Defendant's Honda Acura left-hand drive motor car, on the Liberty Valley Main Road in the Parish of St. Ann, near to the Dover raceway. It seems to be common ground that the accident occurred, and I so find, on the Plaintiff's side of the road, even though the Defendant would seem to say: "On that side of the road, but towards the middle". Notwithstanding that finding, however, it is trite law that the plaintiff must prove his case on a balance of probabilities. He must adduce evidence of the breach on the part of the defendant of her duty of care to him as a user of the public roadway on which they were both travelling on that fateful November day in 1994.

2 The Plaintiff in the "Particulars of Negligence" in his Statement of Claim, avers that the defendant was negligent in that, the defendant was:

"driving in a dangerous manner; driving at too fast a rate of speed having regard to all the circumstances; driving without due care and attention and without due consideration for other users of the roadway;... failing to keep a straight and/or safe course; driving at or unto the incorrect side of the roadway and thereby colliding with the plaintiff's motor vehicle which was traveling in the opposite direction; failing to apply brakes in sufficient time or at all; failing to stop, slow down, turn aside or in any other way so to manage or manoeuvre the said motor vehicle so as to avoid the collision."

3 The defendant, in her amended defence, says that she was not negligent and she suggests that the blame for the accident should be ascribed to the plaintiff's own negligence, or at the very least that he contributed to the accident by his own negligence. In this regard, her pleadings of the facts which would seek to ground a finding of negligence on the part of the plaintiff alleges that the Plaintiff was guilty of negligence in the following ways:

"failing to keep to his proper side of the road; driving onto the Defendant's proper side of the road; driving at a speed which was excessive in the circumstances. Failing to stop, slow down or otherwise control his said motor vehicle so as to avoid a collision".

4 The court had the benefit of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant, a passenger in the minibus and the policeman who visited the scene of the accident at some time after it had occurred. I have deliberately avoided saying that he "investigated the accident" for it would be charitable to describe what the policeman said he did as amounting to investigating.

5 The court, in assessing the witnesses and the testimony that they gave, found the plaintiff to be a witness of truth, firm and consistent in his recollection of the events which took place on November 1, 1994. His evidence in relation to the particulars of negligence pleaded in his Statement of Claim, is credible and in fact, is supported by the defendant in material particulars; for example as to the side of the road on which the accident took place, and the fact that the defendant's vehicle was swerving from side to side. It is my view that these allegations are credible and raise an inference of negligence on the part of the defendant.

6 Further, I agree with counsel for the plaintiff, that the evidence which was given by the defendant does not in any way support the allegations made in her particulars of negligence in her Defence. There is no evidence to support any of the purportedly factual allegations about the driving of the plaintiff or his contribution to the cause of the accident. In fact, I have to say that the evidence of the defendant was...