Fergus v Fenton

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: Court of Appeal (Montserrat)
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.,GORDON, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1969
• Neutral Citation: MS 1969 CA 1
• Docket Number: No. 1 of 1969
• Date: 14 May 1969

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. Court of Appeal

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

No. 1 of 1969

Fergus

and

Fenton

Tort - Damage to vehicle — Assessment

Facts: This was an appeal against an order of the magistrate in which she awarded the sum of $535 as damages in respect of damage to the plaintiff/respondent's motor vehicle which was sustained in a collision with the defendant/appellant's motor car. The issue was whether the sum of $250 awarded as special damages could be justified.

Held: That the award was unjustified. Appeal allowed to the extent of reducing the damages awarded by $250.

Lewis, C.J.

1 This is an appeal against an order of the learned magistrate made on the 4 ^th February, 1969 in which she awarded the sum of $535 as damages in respect of injuries to the plaintiff/respondent's motor pickup, which it suffered as a result of a collision with the defendant/appellant's motorcar. Liability is no longer an issue, if indeed it was on the trial. Certainly by the time the case for the defence was closed the defendant's counsel said that the only issue was that of damages, and he has today told the court that there is no appeal on the issue of liability.

2 The appellant said at the trial that the defendant's motorcar tried to overtake him and ran into him, and this is how the injuries were caused. A bumper and a fender were damaged. He claimed $100 as the cost of replacing the bumper, $55 for materials and workmanship for repairs to the fender, and 20 days loss of use at $20 a day while the pick up was under repair. At the close of the case the magistrate was of opinion that damages were proved to the extent of $90 in respect of the bumper, $55 in respect of the fender, and 7 days for loss of use, namely $140. This totalled $285, which she called special damages, and she added to that a sum of $250.00 as general damages.

3 The appellant challenges all the items that were allowed and also the 250. He says that the award was excessive.

4 I have listened with interest to learned counsel for the appellant but I am not persuaded that the amounts allowed far the various items were excessive. The cost of a new bumper was $75 and the defendant's own witness said it would cost about $10 to put it on, but the complaint of appellant's learned counsel is that the magistrate should have deducted a sum equal to the approximate value of the old bumper because it could have been sold,...