Ramsay (Winsome Patricia Crawford) v The Jamaica Public Service Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: Campbell J,
• Judgment Date: 07 February 2003
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2003] 2 JJC 0701
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. C.L. 1999/R113
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Date: 07 February 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN COMMON LAW

SUIT NO. C.L. 1999/R113

BETWEEN

WINSOME PATRICIA CRAWFORD RAMSAY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE JAMAICA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY LIMITED

DEFENDANT

NEGLIGENCE - Electricity pole - Transformer on pole - Filure to maintain transformer - Damage to dwelling house - Award of damages - Loss of house - Loss of furniture and personal effects

Campbell J

1 On the 12 ^th April 1999 at approximately 7:00am, Ingrid Newell, a neighbour of the plaintiff, was at a shop in Dunder Hill, in the parish of St. Elizabeth. She testified that the lights in the shop "kept going down and up", and on and off. As a result the shopkeeper unplugged her electrical appliances. She said that whilst standing at the doorway of the shop, she saw "the transformer sparked up, and everyone under the piazza jump up and ran in different directions". She testified further that, "I saw a ball of fire like my hand (the witness demonstrate with her fist) run up the line and went straight up the road". So impressed was she with the spectacle that she refused to walk under the transformer. The sparks she had seen she likened to that from a welding gun. Those sparks were distinguishable from the "ball of fire", she had seen run along the lines. She said she heard that the plaintiff's house was on fire. She proceeded to the plaintiff's house where there were about five persons gathered. She noticed that at the front of the house "where the wire was connected to the front room, was engulfed in flames". There were no members of the plaintiff's household present at that time. She observed two men "chop off the two gas cylinders and push them away". She said by the time the fire truck came, the house was totally engulfed in flames. She noticed the defendants' truck came and the defendants' workmen removed the plaintiff's meter. She did not notice any of the men from the defendants' truck at the plaintiff's house. She stated that there was low voltage in the area four days prior to the fire, and that it was about eight minutes after she had noticed the sparks from the transformer that she had heard that the plaintiff's house was on fire. She describes the distance from the transformer to the plaintiff's house as being "about a five minutes walk". She said when she had reached home she realised that the electricity had returned to the district.

2 In cross-examination, she said she had been at Ms. Johnson's shop when she observed the sparks from the transformer. This transformer is situated directly across the road from Ms. Johnson's shop. From there she witnessed the "sparking", it was not possible to see the plaintiff's home. She said she never saw the defendants' workmen came and replaced the wiring.

3 Another neighbour of the plaintiff, Nicola Artwell, testified that she noticed her television set going "on and off". She said she observed "a ball of fire", on the light post running towards the plaintiff's house. She testified that she unplugged her television set and turned off the breaker. She heard something popping over at the plaintiff's house and saw smoke, next she saw "the awning, that's where the fire was". She said neighbours, in an attempt to slow the fire, gathered and removed zinc from the plaintiff's roof as also the gas cylinder. The witness said the reason she turned off the breaker was because she saw the lights going down. She testified in reference to the defendants' workmen that the "guys were there rolling up the burnt wire. A wire was there on the ground." She testified that the lights have behaved in a similar manner in the evenings around 7:00pm.

4 The Plaintiff had earlier testified that she left her home in Dunder Hill, St. Elizabeth, to her "little shop" that she operated in the Junction market. She had left her teenaged son and her nephew at home. Some three hours later, the police arrived at her shop and transported her to her home. On arrival she noticed "flames in the air and a lot of people were there". She testified that the entire roof of her house was on fire. She said she broke down in tears and had to be removed from the scene. The entire district was in darkness on her arrival.

5 On the 29 ^th October 1999 the plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the defendant to recover damages for negligence, alleging the defendants' failure to maintain their transformer and/or electrical wires located at close proximity to the plaintiff's said premises. As a consequences of which the plaintiff was inconvenienced and suffered loss and damage.

6 The Statement of Claim averred at;

7 Paragraph 3 At all material times the Defendant had an electricity pole with a transformer attached erected at close proximity to the Plaintiff's aforesaid premises.

8 Paragraph 4 On or about the 12 ^th day of April 1999, through the negligence of Defendant, their servants and/or agents, the service wire at close proximity to the Plaintiff's said premises became ignited and as a consequence of which the Plaintiff's dwelling house was set on fire and subsequently destroyed.

9 Particulars of Negligence:

• (a) Failing to ensure that the service wire at close proximity to the Plaintiff premises was connected in a manner whereby no damage would result to the Plaintiff's dwelling house

• (b) Failing to maintain the transformer in a proper condition and workmanlike manner.

• (c) Failing to take steps to ensure that the electrical current flowing through the wires was consistent.

• (d) Failing to take steps to prevent asurse of electricity to the Plaintiff's premises

• (e) Failing to prevent the electrical wire from becoming ignited from power surges.

10 The Defence, which was filed on the 6 ^th January 2000, states inter alia

• 4 Save that on 12 ^th April 1999 the Plaintiff's premises was affected by fire, paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim are expressly denied. The Defendant say that at all material times its service wire, transformer and other equipment were in proper working order.

• 5 The Defendant says that the Defendant, its servants or agents, its equipment and services had nothing to do with the fire at the Plaintiff's premises and neither did the Defendant, its servants or agent caused or contributed to the creation or the igniting of the said fire.

11 The parties each brought an expert to prove their respective cases. Mr. Fitzmore Coates was brought by the plaintiff. He is a Senior Forensic Officer in the Ministry of National Securiy and Justice. Among his duties is the investigation of fires. In this, he has twenty-five years experience. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from U.W.I in 1976, with a minor in Biochemistry and Physics, electronics as a part of his physics course. He has had specialised training at Home Office Research, in Reading England. Among major fires he has investigated was at the Golden Age Home called Eventide in 1976.

12 Coates visited the plaintiff's home two days after the fire. He testified that his examination revealed that the fire was electrical in nature and had started at the "pothead" at the northeastern section of the house. He opined that the building burnt from that section and the fire spread throughout the roof, following the electrical wiring. He noted that all the electrical appliances with the exception of the refrigerator was unplugged prior to the fire. He came to that conclusion because the wires and plug had carbon on them, which would not be the case if they had been plugged in at the socket at the time of the fire. In respect of the refrigerator, he opined that it was only slightly burnt from the top, and where it was plugged in was not burnt, from which he concluded that the refrigerator played no part in the start of the fire. There was no short circuit "from the fridge or any area of the fridge". The breaker in the northeast bedroom had tripped. Coates testified that the building had burnt from the top, with the most severe burning in the area of the pothead. He defined the pothead as the area where the external service joins the wiring of the building. There was The evidence of short-circuit (leading to an internal fire), in the opinion of Coates, would be "fusing and beading" of the wire with a resultant lost of tensile strength, "the wire would become brittle and break easily." This could be contrasted with an external fire which would have the effect of burning off the insulation, but the wire would still be pliable. Asked if there was any difference in the wiring immediately outside the dwelling house and what he had observed within, Coates responded that, "There were no wires outside the dwelling house for observation except the remains of some wires that were coming from the pothead, which was what was joined to the external wire." This response as to his observation about wires at the area of the pothead is supported by the testimony of Nicola Artwell. When Artwell during the course of her testimony was shown exhibit 6 (which the defence claims shows the defendants' wires coming from the "pothead") she said, "the following day the guys were rolling up the electrical wire. "It was suggested to Artwell that she was mistaken as to seeing the burnt wire being rolled up. The defendants' linesman who visited the scene the night of the fire testified that he did not see any wires on the ground. Coates opined that the wires, the remains of aluminum cable which appear to have been burnt off through "shorting" and had jagged edges and characteristic consistent with being "short-out". He explained that "arching" would take place where the fire runs along the wire and jump a gap, "shorting out" on the other wire. On the other side of...