Martin v Greaves

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Puisne, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 March 1993
• Neutral Citation: MS 1993 HC 1
• Docket Number: No. 65 of 1990
• Date: 18 March 1993

High Court/Court of Appeal

Puisne, J.

No. 65 of 1990

Martin

and

Greaves

Tort - Negligence — Vehicular accident involving two vehicles — Plaintiff's vehicle attempted to overtake a vehicle travelling ahead — Defendant's vehicle ran into rear of plaintiff's vehicle — Whether defendant negligent — Whether plaintiff contributorily negligent.

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is a claim by the plaintiff for damages against the defendant for damage to his motor car which the plaintiff alleges occurred as a result of the defendant'S negligence.

2 The plaintiff in his evidence said that on 26 July 1990 he was travelling from West to East in his motor car along the Cork Hill main road. He was travelling at bout 30 to 35 miles per hour. As he approached the Delving road he noticed a motor car with an ‘L’ about 500 to 600 feet in front of him.

3 Continuing his evidence:–

“There was also an oncoming vehicle way ahead travelling from East to West. It was about 1000 feet or a little away. I slowed down to allow the vehicle to pass by. I signalled with a hand signal and just as I was about reaching 20 to 30 feet from the vehicle with “L” on it I received a bang in the back of my vehicle. There was a motor car at the back of my vehicle H3042 driven by the defendant.”

4 The plaintiff's vehicle sustained extensive damage to the back. According to the plaintiff the chassis on the left was folded all the way up to the spare tyre holder. The left fender was smashed. The rear lights were damaged. The reflector in the centre of the trunk was also damaged. The bumper and bumper brackets were damaged. The gas tubing was broken. The tyre holder was damaged. The car had to be towed from the scene because of the extent of the damage. It was put to the plaintiff in crass examination that the accident: occurred as a result of his trying to overtake the Learner driver's car which was In front of him and when he realised that he was not able to overtake the motor car he pulled back behind the learner driver's car and the defendant's car ran into the back of his car. This the plaintiff denied strenuously.

5 The plaintiff insisted that the accident occurred as A result. of the defendant's fault. He said that he had observed the defendant's motor car behind him just before the accident. He testified that the defendant was travelling at about 40 miles per hour. He also said that. after the accident the defendant told him the accident occurred as a result of his fault because he was gazing. The plaintiff further stated in his testimony that the defendant went to his, the plaintiff's, lawyer Mr. Brandt to admit liability.

6 The defendant in his testimony, on the other hand, said that he was driving his motor car 113042 from West to East that is from Plymouth towards Cork Hill. He said he first noticed the plaintiff's car when he was on his way from town. The defendant said he was travelling at about 40 miles per hour and the plaintiff was travelling at about the same speed because he maintained a constant distant of about 30 feet behind the plaintiff's car all along the way from town until the accident cook place. He said:–

“As I reached by Margetson's house…. the plaintiff came out from the lane the lane in which he was He appeared as if he was about to overtake the green car that was to front of him. At that point I observed a car coming in the opposite direction travelling at about a reasonable. The plaintiff seemed to have hesitated, tried to cut back in the lane that he was in ….. The car in front of him seemed to have stopped. At that point the car was at an angle. I ran straight. into the left rear of his car. When I saw him cutting back in applied my brakes.”

7 The defendant denied that he told the plaintiff that the accident was caused as a result of his fault and that he was not paying attention when the accident occurred. He also denied ever going to the office of Mr. Brandt with the plaintiff to admit liability.

8 The plaintiff called on Alston Pipet as a witness. He was a passenger in the plaintiff's car and was sitting in the front seat. This witness to my mind was not very helpful. All he was able to say wad that he was being driven in the plaintiff's car which was travelling at about 30 - 35 miles per hour at the time when he heard a report' at the back of the car and when he looked back he observed it was the defendant is motor car which struck the plaintiff's motor car. He was unable to say whether the plaintiff was at the time of the accident attempting to overtake the car which was in front of him.

9 The defendant called two witnesses. Winston Smith, the instructor of the learner who was driving to front of the plaintiff. He said he was teaching someone to drive on the Cork Hill road. He was travelling from West to East.. On reaching the vicinity opposite Margetson's house he observed a motor car was travelling in the opposite direction from East to West. The motor car was travelling, according to this witness at ‘a fair speed’ about 40 - 45 miles per hour. That car braked hard and stopped opposite his motor car. Then when he looked across he saw a red car (the plaintiff's car) trying to get between his car and the oncoming car. The car could not; so if pulled back behind his car and touched the bumper of his car slightly. A few seconds latter he heard a big impact from behind. He came out of his motor car and observed that the defendants car “had collided with the plaintiff's car.

10 Glanford Cabey, Corporal of Police, was catled by the defendant. He was one of the police officers who arrived oh the scone shortly after the accident. He took measurements at the scene. Included in the measurements which he took are the length of tyre impressions of both defendant's and plaintiff's car. The length of the tyre impression made by plaintiff a car was 106 feet and that made by defendant's car was 105 feet. The police officer said that both the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the respective tyre impressions wake made by their cars.

11 Corporal Cabey also said in evidence that he asked the plaintiff and defendant to give him an explanation as to how the accident occurred: They both did so. He took their explanations down in writing; read it back to them and they each signed.

12 He said the plaintiff told him by way of explation that he was going up towards Cork Hill. There was a car in front of him. Another car was coming down. He Saw the other car stopped, eased forward. There was no room for him to pass. He made a sudden stop. Greaves, the defendant, came and hit him.

13 ...