Trudy-Ann Silent-Hyatt v Rohan Marley
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Lindo, J. |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 2016HCV03719 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
[2021] JMSC Civ 52
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
CIVIL DIVISION
CLAIM NO. 2016HCV03719
and
Ms Yualande Christopher instructed by Yualande Christopher & Associates for the Claimant
Mr Stephen Jackson instructed by Samuda & Johnson for the Defendants
Negligence — Motor vehicle accident — 1st Defendant's Motor truck colliding in back of Claimant's car — Vicarious liability — Contributory Negligence
Damages — Assessment — Pain and suffering and loss of amenities — Preexisting medical condition — Post Traumatic Stress Disorder — Special damages
On April 15, 2016 at about 2:10 p.m., there was an accident along Half Way Tree Road in the parish of Saint Andrew. It involved motor car registered 9115 EH driven by Trudy-Anne Silent-Hyatt, a Marketing and Public Relations Consultant, and motor truck, registered CE 9933, owned by Rohan Anthony Marley and driven by Jason Davion Walters, an Electrician/Repairs and Maintenance Consultant. They were both travelling in the same direction with Mrs Silent-Hyatt driving in front of Mr Walters when Mr Walters collided in the rear of her car.
On September 1, 2016, Mrs Silent-Hyatt filed a Claim and Particulars of Claim alleging that she sustained personal injuries, property damage and loss and expenses “on account of the 2 nd Defendant's negligent operation of the 1 st Defendant's motor vehicle”. She is seeking to recover damages.
In the Particulars of Negligence of the 2 nd Defendant, she lists the following:
-
a. Failing to keep a proper lookout along the roadway;
-
b. Failure to take heed of the position and distance of the claimant's motor vehicle in the lane ahead and on the roadway;
-
c. Failure to apply his brake or manoeuvre his vehicle in a timely manner to avoid a collision;
-
d. Driving at an excessive speed;
-
e. Failing to take any other effective measure to avoid a collision;
-
f. In the circumstances, drove his said vehicle in a reckless and unreasonable manner without reasonable concern for the safety of other road users, and in particular the Claimant;
-
g. Driving away from the scene of the accident in an attempt to avoid liability.
The 1 st Defendant filed a Defence on November 4, 2016, while the 2 nd Defendant filed his Defence on January 6, 2017. Both Defences are identical in content. They admit that they are owner and driver, respectively, of the motor vehicle bearing registration number CE 9933, and deny that the 2 nd Defendant “slammed into the rear of the motor vehicle being driven by the Claimant approximately 5–6 seconds after the Claimant had come to a complete stop”. They state that the Claimant came to a sudden and abrupt stop when a taxi ahead of her was stopped by a policeman, and that the 2 nd Defendant received no prior warning of her intention to stop and he attempted to avoid colliding with her but was unable to do so, “ despite his best efforts”.
The Defendants state further that after the collision the 2 nd Defendant had to “move from the scene to location off the road so as not to create a traffic jam…” They deny that the collision was caused by their negligence, deny the particulars of negligence pleaded by the Claimant and state that the collision was caused and/or contributed to by the negligence of the Claimant. They allege that the Claimant was negligent in that she:
-
a. Failed to keep any or any proper lookout or to have any or any sufficient regard for traffic along the said road;
-
b. Failed to give any or any adequate warning of her intention to stop;
-
c. Failed to exercise or to maintain any or any sufficient control of the said motor vehicle which she was driving at the material time;
-
d. Stopped suddenly and abruptly ahead of the 2 nd Defendant and in his path thereby causing the said collision;
-
e. Failed to take any or any other step or in any other way so to manage or control the said motor vehicle as to avoid the said collision.
The court has to determine whether the 2 nd Defendant caused injury and damage to the Claimant by reason of negligence and whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent. Additionally, the court has to address the issue of vicarious liability as the 1 st Defendant is the owner, and the 2 nd Defendant was the driver of the motor truck, and their Defence is silent on whether the driver was the servant or agent of the 1 st Defendant.
The court also has to determine the nature and extent of the personal injury and property damage sustained by the Claimant, and the quantum of damages, if any, to which she is entitled, if the Defendants are found to be negligent.
The matter came on for trial on September 21, 2020. The Claimant gave evidence on her own behalf, while the 2 nd Defendant gave evidence on behalf of the Defendants. Their witness statements were admitted as their evidence in chief and they were cross examined. There was no independent eyewitness to the accident.
Documents numbered 1 – 42, and including reports from six persons who were called as expert witnesses, were agreed and admitted in evidence.
The expert witnesses were Dr Stuart Murray, Anaesthetist and Pain Consultant; Dr Neville Ballin, Consultant in Anaesthetics, Critical Care and Pain Management; Dr Kai A.D. Morgan, Consultant Clinical Psychologist; Dr Shaun Corbett, Board Certified in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation & Pain Medicine; Dr Randolph Cheeks, Consultant Neurosurgeon; and Dr Mark Minott, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and Sports Medicine Physician.
The Claimant's evidence as contained in her witness statement filed on December 20, 2019, is that she had just driven off from a stop light which had turned green, was driving at 5–8 mph in the second lane of a four lane road and a car in the lane to her left began drifting into the second lane. She says she came to a complete stop to allow the vehicle to complete the transition into her lane and while waiting for 5–6 seconds she felt the impact of a vehicle in the back of her car and her body was jerked.
She adds that she sat for a few seconds and then was in the motion of opening her car door when she saw the same vehicle “ reversing somewhat”. She states that “ he rubbed the right back light and scraped the side of the vehicle as he hurriedly drove away…”. She says she pursued him for a few chains, he drove into First Caribbean Bank car park and she parked on the outside, exited her car, began feeling pains and having intense muscle spasms and after about 5–6 minutes, the truck driver handed her his documents, she held onto them and they went to the Half Way Tree Police station.
Her evidence also is that she has a pre-existing condition, fibromyalgia, and in recent times her pains had decreased and she was not relying on opioid/narcotic pain medication, could do light exercises and housework and was not depressed and could pursue other activities and hobbies. She says when the 2 nd Defendant rear ended her she “ did not feel all the physical effects on the spot…was trying all the relaxation techniques learnt…was getting worse and that is when [she] scheduled a visit to see Dr Stuart Murray… on April 24, 2016 – for the first time in 3 years”.
Mrs Silent-Hyatt also states that since the accident her “ base line pains have been exacerbated to the point that [she] had to return to opioids/narcotic medications to cope…[she] would …scream or have panic and anxiety attacks if vehicles get too close to the vehicle that [she] is in…”
She indicates that she visited and received treatment from medical experts and none of them have been successful in restoring her “pre-accident condition” and she was again referred to Rosomoff. She says the cost of the initial assessment which took place over three days was US$3,689.00 and she had to borrow all the funds to pay for the evaluation, accommodation and air fare. She also states that the five-week treatment plan proposed by Rosomoff as at 2017 was at a cost of US$101,197.93, inclusive of airfare and accommodation for an assistant, “ as [she] is unable to travel without one”.
When cross examined, Mrs Silent-Hyatt said she was proceeding very slowly, there was no car in front of her, she applied her brake and gently came to a “ full stop” and then felt “a big jerk”. She said the impact felt like a major one because she did a “ whiplash motion” and the damage to her vehicle was significant enough for her to have to replace the bumper and right rear light, and there was a scrape on the right side.
When asked if she checked her rear view mirror to see if any vehicle was behind her, Mrs Silent Hyatt said “ I don't remember doing that” but admitted that she considered it important to do so. She also said on impact, her vehicle did not move and that she started feeling pain when she went to the police station.
Mrs Silent-Hyatt agreed that she had a prior accident and indicated that she declared that she had fibromyalgia. She also agreed that the injuries, subject of her claim, are identical to symptoms she would have due to fibromyalgia but said they are of a greater magnitude. She explained that she suffered new injuries, her “ baseline pain was heightened” and that the whiplash motion was that her body went “ back and forth”. She said she went to the police station about 10 to 15 minutes after the accident.
Mr Walters' evidence in chief is contained in his witness statement filed on August 11, 2020. He states that he was travelling behind the Claimant and was about 1 1/2 car lengths from her car and the traffic was heavy. He says he saw a policeman stop a taxi operator who was driving in front of the Claimant, she stopped suddenly as the taxi operator had stopped and was then...
To continue reading
Request your trial