Jones v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 December 1969
• Neutral Citation: BB 1969 HC 10
• Docket Number: No. 142 of 1967
• Date: 18 December 1969
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court

Williams, J.

No. 142 of 1967

Jones

and

Williams

Appearances:

Mr. C.L. Bolden for the plaintiff instructed by Browne, Husbands & Co.

Mr. A. Phillips for the defendant instructed by Yearwood & Boyce.

Tort - Damages — Negligence — Car entrusted to mechanic for repairs left unattended — Parts missing and general deterioration

Williams, J.

1 In 1963 Mr. Jones had a Vauxhall Velox motor car X 664. He had purchased this car in 1960 from the Courtesy Garage. He had bought it as a used car, then approximately six years old. In October, 1963 he wanted repairs done to the car and for this purpose went to Mr. Williams, a mechanic carrying on business at Keizer Hill, Christ Church. After a discussion between Mr. Jones and Mr. Williams the car was left at the latter's premises and there it remained until it was towed away in 1966 on the plaintiff's instructions and later sold as scrap. It fetched $70. I should add that in 1965 the defendant moved his business to Church Hill, Christ Church, and with it the plaintiff's car.

2 This is a bare skeleton of the transaction which has led to this suit between the two parties but no more can be said without entering the area of controversy. There is conflict of evidence as to the condition and value of the car when it was left with the defendant, as to the arrangements made, and as to the condition of the car when it was towed away by the plaintiff.

3 The plaintiff states that the value of the car when it was delivered to the defendant was $1,200. The defendant testifies that the value of the car at that time was between $400 — $500. Some evaluation of the evidence is required in order to arrive at the truth. The plaintiff bought the car in 1960 for $1,500. He paid a portion of this in cash and had credit for the remainder. It is reasonable to assume that the true value of the car was less than $1,500 since that price would include an element of interest. The plaintiff in his evidence says:

“The value of the car was first given to the insurance company in 1960. I went into the insurance company and told them the value of the car was $1,200, in 1960.”

4 In my opinion this figure is nearer to the actual value of the car in 1960. The car was delivered to the defendant in late 1963 and some allowance must be made for depreciation in value over the interval. Some allowance must also be made for the actual condition of the car at the time of delivery. The plaintiff testifies that all he wanted done to the car was some upholstering to the front seat, a little body work and a paint job and that he was looking to pay anything like $120 in all. On the other hand, the defendant's evidence was that the plaintiff told him that he wanted everything done to the car so that it would pass the inspection which was necessary before it could be run as a taxi. He says that much was wrong with the car and that the repairs would have cost in the region of $300 — $350.

5 I am inclined to accept the defendant's evidence on this point rather than the plaintiff's. A man seeking to have a car inspected and passed fit for service as a taxi would hardly seek to limit the scope of the repair...