Howell v Hyman

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Ward, J.,Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1968
• Date: 01 January 1968
• Court: Divisional Court (Barbados)

Supreme Court

Ward, J.; Williams, J.

Howell

and

Hyman

Appearances:

Mr. J.E.T. Brancker, Q.C. and Mr. C. Boyce for Mr. Howell.

Mr. W.H.A. Hanschell, Q.C. for Mr. Hyman.

Tort - Negligence — Liability (Traffic accident)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 On 11th September, 1966, Cecil Howell was driving his car on Bourbon Road, St. Lucy, going in an easterly direction. Richard Hyman was proceeding on the same road going westward, that is, in the direction of Howell's car. The drivers were both approaching a “Y” junction. Howell knew this. He went to school on the road and is now over 61 years old. However, he thought that the arm of the bend bearing on the right — the road to St. Lucy's Church which was his destination — was the main road. Hyman had recently come to the island and was not familiar with the road he was on. He thought that he was on a straight road and did not appreciate that he was approaching a junction. When the cars reached the junction Howell bore to his right and Hyman kept to his left and a collision took place. Both cars were damaged. Howell claimed against Hyman for damages, alleging negligence. Hyman counterclaimed against Howell for damages in negligence.

2 The magistrate found that both Howell and Hyman were equally negligent and apportioned liability on the claim and counterclaim equally between them. Both Howell and Hyman have appealed to this court. They have each appealed on similar grounds, that the decision of the magistrate was against the weight of the evidence and was erroneous in law.

3 There is little doubt on the evidence and on the magistrate's view of the locus that neither of the roads which branched off at the junction had any greater status than the other. There were no road signs to indicate this. In determining liability, therefore, both should be treated as of equal status. Howell mistakenly thought that he was proceeding on to a road which entitled him to precedence. The magistrate found that he “may have been negligent in that he must have known that he was approaching a junction, and that he did not take sufficient precaution to indicate the direction in which he was travelling after having observed the defendant's car in good time.” It has been contended that the use of the word “may” indicates that the magistrate did not really make a finding of negligence in respect of Howell. We cannot accept this. The magistrate's reasons must be read as a whole and his...