Mahabir v Singh et Al (2024)

High Court

HCA No. 602 of 1987

Mahabir

and

Singh et al

Mr. R. Singh for plaintiff.

First defendant deceased.

Mr. W. Kangaloo for 2nd defendant.

No appearance of 3rd defendant.

Tort - Negligence — Traffic accident — Liability — Collision occurred when truck with limber wad forced to stop suddenly came into contact with a parked truck causing two cars behind it to collide..

1

This action arises out of an accident which occurred at about 2.00 o'clock in the afternoon of the 18th May 1983, on the Solomon Hochoy Highway in the vicinity of Claxton Bay.

2

The plaintiff who was the driver of a Mercedes Benz PO–6998 did not give evidence at the trial. The only evidence in support of his claim came from Peer Naseir whose evidence was that he was driving in a northerly direction along the Solomon Hochoy Highway. There were two lanes of traffic and he occupied the left lane. Ahead of him was a truck transporting pieces of lumber which were protruding at an angle on the left hand side of the truck tray. According to this witness there was a truck parked on the left shoulder of the road and the lumber from the truck immediately in front of him came into contact with the tray of the parked truck causing the lumber to fall off the truck and onto the roadway. As a consequence of the fallen lumber he was forced to stop whilst still in the left lane. Other vehicles on the right lane were also forced to stop.

3

He then said: “I heard an impact, then I heard another impact and when I looked over to my right I saw a Black Mercedes Benz at the side of me.” He said he saw the vehicle that struck the Benz. When he came out of his car he saw the truck behind the car that was behind the Benz.

4

The second defendant, Mervyn Stoute, gave evidence to the effect that on the date in question he was driving motor vehicle PAE–2117, a Renault, in a northerly direction along the said Solomon Hochoy Highway in the vicinity of the Macaulay Flyover when the accident occurred.

5

According to Stoute, as a consequence of a depression in the road, there was some construction work going on the left side of the said north-bound carriageway shortly before the Macaulay Junction. He said he saw a Works Department truck off-loading some boulders and part of the said truck was slightly projecting on the solid portion of the roadway just off the embankment where the works were being effected. He said the Mercedes Benz was in front of him and the truck with the lumber was immediately in front of Mercedes Benz.

6

He further said that as a consequence of the truck with the lumber coming into contact with the parked truck some of the lumber fell onto the roadway causing the Benz to come to a standstill. He said he too came to a standstill behind the Benz when the truck that was immediately behind him struck the rear of his vehicle causing his vehicle to lunge forward into the rear of the plaintiffs vehicle. At that time, he said, he was about 6 feet behind the Benz. He also said that when he saw the truck TAE–711 which was owned by the 3rd defendant, it was about 20 feet behind him. After the impact his car ended up in a ditch between the northern and southern carriageway. He further said that the truck that collided with the rear of his vehicle went on to hit the Benz. That truck, he said, was loaded with either bitumen or gravel.

7

By consent of the parties photographs of the damage done to the 2nd defendant's vehicle were tendered into evidence as “MS1, 2 and 3”.

8

Now, how did this accident really happen? Both parties agreed that the fundamental question to be answered is: “Did the 2nd defendant's Renault crash into the rear of the plaintiff's Mercedes Benz on its own motion or was it as a result of the truck first coming into contact with the 2nd defendant's vehicle and forcing it onto the plaintiff's vehicle?”

9

If the answer to the first part of the question lies in the affirmative, the 2nd defendant would be negligent. If however the answer lies in the latter part of the question, no liability can be attached to the 2nd defendant.

10

This court must first find the facts and then draw from the inference of fact whether or not any of the defendants had been negligent.

11

See Benmax v. Austin Motors Ltd. [1955] 1 All E.R.1

12

The advantage enjoyed by a trial judge in determining any question whether any witness is, or is not, trying to tell what he believes to be truth must never be minimised.

13

The trial judge also has that special advantage of seeing and hearing the witness give his evidence and can readily come to a conclusion as to the witness' memory or his powers of observations.

14

See Benmax v. Austin Motors Ltd. (supra)

15

In the present instance, the case for the plaintiffs rested on the evidence of Peer Naseir.

16

I find that by his answers given in cross-examination he demonstrated a poor recollection of what took place that day. An important matter as the landslide only came out in cross-examination and even then his memory had to be jogged. He was honest in his answers, he said...