Knight et Al v Taitt

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Rocheford, P.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: BB 1983 HC 22
• Docket Number: No. 121 of 1982
• Date: 01 March 1983
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court. (Civil Jurisdiction)

Rocheford, P.J. (Ag.)

No. 121 of 1982

Knight et al

and

Taitt

Appearances:

Mr. H. deB. Forde, Q.C., for the plaintiffs.

Mr. P.K.H. Cheltenham for the defendant.

Damages - Negligence — Motor Vehicle accident — Damages to vehicle

Rocheford, P.J.

1 The first plaintiff was the driver and the second plaintiff the owner of a motor van. On the 22nd September, 1981, the said van was involved in a collision with a motor van owned and driven by the defendant. As a result the first plaintiff suffered personal injuries and both plaintiffs suffered loss and damage. They have claimed damages and interest thereon caused by the negligent driving of the defendant.

2 The defendant gave no notice of intention to defend and he failed to serve a defence on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, by virtue of the provisions of Order 19 rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, entered interlocutory judgments against the defendant for damages to be assessed and costs. This matter has now come before me in chambers by Virtue of the provisions of Order 37 rule 1 of the said rules of the Supreme Court for the assessment of damages.

3 The parties have agreed on all the damages to be awarded except the following item –

“Loss of use from the 28th September, 1981 to the 1st February 1982 $6 300.”

4 The second plaintiff stated the following. In the course of his business he operates a Daihatsu van to transport air-conditioners and refrigerators. The van is an open back pick-up, a design that is essential for the purposes to which the van is used. Without the use of such a van the business would cease. Such a van was found in the Daihatsu and Suzuki makes only. He replaces the van with a new one every three years. This van was approximately four months old. The collision rendered it a total loss. He tried to obtain a similar new van as a replacement from the agents for Daihatsu and Suzuki without success. He also tried to purchase a second hand van of like make and design, but he was also not successful in doing so. He rented a Suzuki van at a cost of $350 a week for 18 weeks, that is until the new Daihatsu van was delivered. He had claimed $6 300 as expenses incurred as a result of the wrongful act of the defendant.

5 In Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) 5 Ex. 92, Martin B. stated –

“Special damages are given in respect of any consequences reasonably or probably arising from the breach complained of.”

6 In this case, there is no doubt that the expenses incurred by the second plaintiff as a result of the loss of use of the motor van for 18 weeks was a consequence which arose from the breach complained of. However, the defendant is liable only for the consequences reasonably arising from the breach. This has imposed on the second plaintiff a duty to take mitigating steps and to act reasonably.

7 Counsel for the second plaintiff referred to a number of cases, of which Moore v D.E.R. Ltd. [1971] 3 All E.R. 517 and Martindale v Duncan [1973] 2 All E.R. 355 are relevant.

8 In Moore v D.E.R. Ltd. the plaintiff, a dentist whose Rover car was rendered a...