Brathwaite et Al v Harris

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Douglas, C.J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 June 1973
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)
• Docket Number: No. 26 of 1973
• Date: 28 June 1973

High Court

Douglas, C.J.; Williams, J.

No. 26 of 1973

Brathwaite et al

and

Harris

Appearances:

Mr. W. H. Hanschell, Q.C., for the appellant Brathwaite.

Sir T. Brancker, Q.C., for the appellant Harding.

Mr. M. King for the respondent.

Negligence - Traffic Accident — Liability

Facts: This action arose out of an accident involving three vehicles — The issue was whether the defendant was liable for the damage sustained by the cars driven by the two appellants

Held: The respondent was not negligent — Both appellants were equally liable for the damage done to the defendant's car.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 On February 28, 1972 a collision took place on the Charles Duncan 0'Neale Bridge in Bridgetown, involving the respondent's motorcar. The respondent filed her action in the Magistrate's Court at District “A” claiming damages against the first appellant, who in due course sought and obtained leave to join the second appellant as a third party.

2 The respondent's case is that the first appellant's car M-3626, collided with the rear of her car M-2825. The first appellant's case is that the accident was caused by the negligence of the second appellant in that he drove his motor car S-1340 into the back of the first appellant's car thereby forcing it into the rear of the respondent's car. The second appellant on the other hand maintains that the accident was caused by the first appellant suddenly cutting across the path of his car and, in consequence of the respondent's car slowing down for a cyclist, running into the back of the respondent's car and being in turn struck by the second appellant's car.

3 The magistrate felt that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied and considered that each of the appellants would have to show that the accident took place without negligence on his part if he wished to escape liability. I think the magistrate was in error on the question of the applicability of the doctrine. Reference to Scott v London & St Katherine Docks Co. (1865) 3 H. & C. 596; 159 E.R. 665 shows that the doctrine applies where the causes of the accident are unknown but the inference of negligence is clear from the nature of the accident. It has been extended to a multitude of factual situations but never before, so far as I am aware, to a case involving three moving vehicles on the highway. I think the high-water mark of the application of the doctrine must be the case where a moving vehicle comes...