Prescod v Rogers et Al

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Hanschell, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1973
• Neutral Citation: BB 1973 HC 9
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 100 of 1973
• Date: 21 June 1973
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

Supreme Court

Hanschell, J.

Civil Suit No. 100 of 1973

Prescod

and

Rogers et al

Appearances:

Mr. R.L.M. Clarke for the plaintiff.

Mr. J.S.B Dear, Q.C. and Mr. A.H. Husbands for the defendants

Negligence - Traffic Accident — Liability

Damages - Personal Injury

Facts: The issue was whether the defendant was liable for an accident — The plaintiff was riding a motor cycle and the defendant who was driving a motor car which was travelling in the opposite direction

Facts: The plaintiff was involved in a motor accident with the defendant and was found to have been 30 percent contributorily negligent and the defendant to have been 70 percent contributorily negligent — The plaintiff sustained a fracture of the left femur, fracture of the left tibia and fibula, fracture of the right medial malleolus and right talus

Held: The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff whom he ought to have seen approaching him — In turning across the road the defendant was negligent and his negligence was the cause of the accident — The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his safety — The plaintiff's damages would be reduced by 30 percent.

Held: Damages for the plaintiff assessed at $12,000.00 less 30 percent.

Hanschell, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries, loss and damage to his motorcycle caused by the negligent driving of the first defendant, the driver of the motorcar owned by the second defendant. The plaintiff's case is that he was riding his motor cycle on the Enterprise Road in the parish of Christ Church in this Island on January 1, 1972, and that as he reached the centre of the junction of Enterprise Road and Carter's Gap, also a public road on his left, the first defendant who was driving a motor car S-895 owned by the second defendant along the Enterprise Road in the opposite direction turned across the road to turn into Carter's Gap and struck the plaintiff and his motor cycle without giving any signal. The plaintiff's evidence is that he was travelling at 15 to 18 m.p.h. at the time of the collision and that the first defendant was travelling at 30 m.p.h. at that time.

2 Apart from the plaintiff, the only other witness of the collision is Mr. Hugue a witness for the defendant. He was driving a car behind the one driven by the first defendant following the first defendant towards Carter's Gap. Mr. Hugue testifies that he was driving at 25 m.p.h. and that the car driven by the first defendant was being driven at 20 m.p.h. and Hugue was catching up with it. He saw the first defendant slow down to 15 m.p.h. and move from his left side into the centre of the road and incline his car to the right as if to turn into Carter's Gap. At the point where the first defendant's car was about five feet from the Carter's Gap junction, Mr. Hugue's car was about two feet behind that of the first defendant.

3 Hugue also saw the plaintiff approaching Carter's Gap on a motorcycle riding along Enterprise Road in the opposite direction to that in which Hugue and the first defendant were travelling. Hugue says that the plaintiff was travelling at 40 m.p.h. He saw the plaintiff strike the first defendant's car and the plaintiff was thrown from his cycle and landed near to a utility pole set inside of the Carter's Gap Junction.

4 At no time during or after the collision did any part of the first defendant's car enter Carter's Gap.

5 I have accepted the evidence of Hugue. I do not believe the plaintiff when he says that he was only doing 15 to 18 m.p.h. nor do I believe that the first defendant was travelling at 30 m.p.h. Both the plaintiff and Hugue agree that the first defendant executed his turn without signalling in any way. In doing so he left his side and moved into the path of the plaintiff who was on his left and proper side and travelling at 40 m.p.h., ten miles per hour faster than the law allows.

6 The first defendant clearly owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, whom he ought to have seen approaching him at speed on what has been described as a straight road. In turning across the road in these circumstances without any signal, the first defendant was negligent and I find that his negligence was the cause of the accident.

7 The plaintiff ought to have seen the first defendant move from his left on to the centre of the road as he approached Carter's Gap and manoeuvre his car so that it was diagonally across the road as it came to the junction. At the speed at which the first defendant drove, his manoeuvre was relatively slow and in the same way that Hugue took care of his own safety and avoided any collision so ought the plaintiff to have ridden and taken reasonable care for his safety. The plaintiff failed to take such care by travelling at 40 m.p.h. on a motor cycle as he approached the on coming car of the first defendant who was moving out from his side and slowing down and inclining his vehicle towards the junction on the plaintiff's left.

8 At that speed the plaintiff put himself in a position in which he could not apply his brakes and maintain his own safety. The plaintiff was blameworthy and in these...