Short v Joseph

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 15 April 1980
• Neutral Citation: AG 1980 HC 10
• Docket Number: 6 of 1980
• Date: 15 April 1980

High Court

Bishop, J.

6 of 1980

Short

and

Joseph

Appearances:

Mr. Gerald A. Watt for plaintiff

Ms. M. Jacobs-Mohamed for defendant.

Damages - Personal injury — Plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury caused by defendant — Sprain and gross swelling of left ankle — Whether plaintiff had been negligent — Quantum or general damages assessed at $550.

Bishop, J.

1 On Saturday 12th May last year, there was an incident at the junction of Burman and Pigotts Roads. Jonathan Short, the plaintiff, as accused 17 year old Jeffrey Joseph of Pigotts of being directly and solely responsible for what occurred, while Jeffrey Joseph has flatly denied liability for the plaintiff's injury (described as “sprain and gross swelling of the left ankle) allegedly suffered in the incident.

2 There were three versions of the events at the material time. Each of the parties to the action gave a version, and Merril James, and on-looker explained what he saw.

3 From my consideration of the testimony I believe that what occurred was this: The plaintiff, an elderly man (wearing at the time, among other things, a pair of rubber boots reaching to his knees), was riding his motor cycle along Pigotts Road, slowly and in the direction of Burma Road. The road was wet, the surface was uneven from the presence of holes and the plaintiff was approaching a junction. While so riding, there was a group of young lads on that road. One of them — Elvis Gore — called out hold him! And in response, the defendant ran towards the plaintiff. He then held the moving motor cycle at the back part of its seat and as he ran beside the vehicle he pulled it in a direction opposite to that in which the plaintiff was riding it. Although the plaintiff requested and ordered the defendant to let go, the latter ignored the pleas and orders and continued to run behind while pulling the motor cycle.

4 When Short got to the junction he turned to the east; Joseph was still holding on the saddle at the back and pulling it against the direction in which Short was riding. The situation then existing led to the fall off the cycle and of its rider; and, in my view, Jeffrey Joseph was responsible for the fall — by his — pulling the motor cycle.

5 Merrill James confirmed that Jeffrey Joseph was holding the motor cycle and indeed he described what Joseph did as “shoving the bike”, He said “I see when the boy shove the bike and the bike overturn “pon Short, “on he foot”. This was unchallenged by the cross-examination.

6 I do not accept that Jonathan Short's cycle slipped as he rode along' not do I accept that slipping led to the fall which was sustained. The subsequent conduct of Jeffrey Joseph fortified me in my finding. The question must arise: if the plaintiff fell by slipping, why did the defendant, and he alone, run away? He sought to say it was due to being frightened by I find myself regarding this as repugnant to reason.

7 After the plaintiff fell, the defendant ran away from the scene; and he did not return or sleep at his mother that night — as she expected him to do — but he went to potters at the home of his father who then carried him to his mother's home on the following day.

8 Hillary Christian the mother of the defendant went to the scene almost immediately after learning of the incident in a report which was made to her. She hired a car in which the plaintiff was taken to the Holberton Hospital. She remained there until around 9:00 p.m. when she took the plaintiff to his home.

9 Two medical...