Eardley Martin v Wayne Hazel Rudolph Mc Taire [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Adams J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 May 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] ECSC J0519-2 |
| Docket Number | SUIT NO: 391 OF 1995 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 19 May 1998 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SUIT NO: 391 OF 1995
By a Writ and Statement of Claim filed on October 9, 1995 the plaintiff sued the first and second named defendants alleging that on the 22nd of June 1995, the latter drove motor vehicle R 2000 in a manner that amounted to negligence. It was further alleged that while the second-named defendant was doing so he was then serving in the capacity as the servant or agent of the first-named defendant thereby making them jointly liable.
The plaintiff by an amended Statement of Claim to which no objection was taken asked for special damages in the sum of $4050.00 for loss of use of his vehicle for 27 days from the 22nd June 1995 to the 18th July 1995
30 at a rate of $150.00 per day, because of the damage resulting to it from the second defendant's driving. He has asked also for special damages and costs.
In relation to the second named defendant (hereinafter referred to as "Mc Taire") an order for assessment of damages was made against him on the 4th July 1996 he having failed to enter an appearance or file a defence. Through some inadvertence this had not been disclosed to the Court andwhen Mc Taire was absent on the morning the trial began, court was adjourned in order to ensure his attendance on the 30th April, there being doubt as to whether he knew the matter was on. It was when he appeared on the 30th and had begun to take part in the proceedings as defendant it was eventually brought to the attention of the Court by Counsel for the plaintiff that judgment had already been entered against him,
Mc Taire was invited by me after this disclosure, to testify and did so having then been cross examined by both counsel. The evidence on record reveals that his evidence was favourable to the first named defendant's 10 case.
In relation to the evidence — I found as a fact that Mc Taire on the day in question did drive negligently and that the damage to the motor vehicle of the plaintiff was as a result of the negligent driving of Mc Taire. The plaintiff's evidence as to loss of use was not challenged nor indeed was the cost of repairs to the vehicle. The two sums of money claimed, that is for loss of use and repairs to the plaintiff's vehicle, must be paid as damages by whomsoever is adjudged to be liable.
In this case because of the judgment already entered against Mc Taire, it becomes necessary only to ascertain whether the first named defendant is 20 jointly liable with him.
There is no contention about the fact that the defendant Hazel was on the day in question the owner of the vehicle. The circumstances under which Mc Taire acquired possession for the purpose of driving were seriously contested. Both of the defendants testified to the fact that Mc Taire rented the car for his own purpose. Miss Sylvester for the plaintiff argued that the document purporting to be evidence of that rental was a fabrication conveniently prepared by the plaintiff for the hearing of this case. While I accept that the first-named defendant was in the business of renting cars, there are circumstances which left me with considerable doubt as to what I 30 would call the "integrity" of the document evidencing the rental agreement.
The document was not referred to as part of the defence of the first-named defendant Hazel at the time the defence...
To continue reading
Request your trial