Casey v Spencer

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Lewis, J.,Lewis, C.J.,Gordon, J.
• Judgment Date: 26 September 1968
• Neutral Citation: AG 1968 CA 6
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 3 of 1968
• Date: 26 September 1968

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J., Gordon J.Lewis, J.

Appeal No. 3 of 1968

Casey

and

Spencer

Appearances:

C.E. Francis for appellant.

C.E. Hewlett for respondent.

Negligence - Contributory negligence — Whether appellant liable for contributory negligence.

Negligence - Damages — Quantum.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the appellant was sitting in the back of a truck when the respondent's bus struck the truck causing severe damages to the appellant.

Facts: The issue for determination was whether the trial judge erred in the amount of damages awarded. Evidence revealed that the trial judge in awarding damages for loss of earnings did not disclose how he arrived at the appellant's yearly earnings; nor did he quantify the award of damages under different heads so as to show how the total sum was arrived at.

Held: The position in which the appellant was sitting in no way contributed to her injuries. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.

Held: There was no obligation on the judge to mention arithmetic calculations of the several amounts under separate heads provided he took into account all relevant factors, kept in mind the various heads under which damages should be awarded, and applied the correct principles of law. In this case even if the awards appeared low it was not so inordinately low to justify interfering with the award. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.

Lewis, J.

1 The appellant who was the plaintiff in the court below brought an action against the respondent claiming damages for injuries sustained by her on 17th October, 1964, as a result of a collision which took place between a truck, owned and driven by Steadman Thomas and a bus owned by the respondent and driven by his servant or agent.

2 On the day in question, the appellant who is labourer and also employed in burning charcoal for herself was travelling in the box of the truck, which was loaded with charcoal. There were two other women with her in the box of the truck, and they, were sitting on the bars of charcoal. As the truck approached Yeaman's corner, a bus belonging to the respondent came around the corner, passed very close to the truck, and struck it on its right side, but apparently did not damage it. The driver of the truck then brought his vehicle to a standstill as close as possible to the left side of the road. While there another bus belonging to the respondent which followed quite closely behind the first bus rounded the corner and ran into the truck in which the appellant was travelling. The front part of the second bus hit the truck just where the appellant was sitting and caused extensive injuries to her feet as a result of which she was hospitalised for six months. The trial judge found that the driver of the second bus “was driving at a considerable speed on a road where much traffic is expected and around a blind corner”, and that “another bus was in front of it”. He also found that he “drove instead of on his left side, more to his right”. He accordingly came to the conclusion that the driver of the second bus was guilty of “gross negligence” and that he was entirely to blame for the accident.

3 It was pleaded in the statement of claim that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the respondent's servant, in that “he drove too fast”, “drove on the wrong side of the road”, “failed to keep a proper lookout(, and failed to pass clear of the stationary truck”. All these allegations of negligence were denied in the defence and it was also denied that the truck was “stationary” when it was struck by the respondent's bus. It was asserted in the defence that the appellant “knew or ought to have known that her position on top of the coals involved a risk of injury” and had “impliedly consented to running that risk”. “Alternatively, it was said, that” the collision was caused wholly or in part by the negligence of the plaintiff”.

4 The learned trial judge after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent's servant was solely responsible for the collision and accordingly he awarded the appellant $16,800.00 general damages and $253.65 special damages - a total of $17,053.65 together with her taxed costs.

5 The appellant has appealed against that part of the judge's order relating to the quantum of damages. Her grounds of appeal were that the learned trial judge did not take into account her loss of earnings down to the date of the trial, and that the general damages awarded were inordinately low.

6 The respondent served a notice of his intention to contend that the judgment of the court below should be varied and that this court would be asked to find that the appellant was guilty of contributory negligence and to reduce the award of damages, on the grounds that the trial judge “drew wrong inferences and conclusions of fact from the evidence adduced, and that “the damages awarded were an excessive and erroneous _estimate.”

7 It was urged by counsel for the appellant that the judge erred in that he did not disclose how he arrived at the appellant's average yearly earnings, and that this constituted a defect in his judgment. After he had developed his argument somewhat, it became apparent that the substance of his complaint was that the judge did not in his judgment quantify the award of damages under separate heads and set out the amount under each head of damage so as to show how he arrived at the total sum awarded. This, however, is not essential, and...