Meade v Greer

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 March 1993
• Neutral Citation: MS 1993 HC 7
• Docket Number: 26 of 1991
• Date: 31 March 1993

Meade

and

Greer

Redhead, J.

26 of 1991

High Court

Tort — Negligence — Motor vehicular accident involving two vehicles — Defendant drove vehicle from major road to minor road — Plaintiff's vehicle travelling on major road in opposite direction and collided with defendant's vehicle — Whether defendant negligent — Whether plaintiff contributorily negligent.

Appearances:

Miss E. Henry for the Plaintiff.

Mr. S. Berzey for the Defendant.

Redhead, J.

1 The plaintiff on 15th February, 1991 issued a writ against the Defendant claiming damage for damage to his motor car as a result of the alleged negligent driven by the appellant.

2 The defendant by his defence alleges that the damage to the plaintiff's car was as a result of negligent driving of the plaintiff. The defendant's counterclaims and seeks damages from the plaintiff for damage which his, the defendant's motor car suffered as a result of the alleged negligent driving of the Plaintiff.

3 The plaintiff in his testimony said that on the 24th July, 1990 he………

4 ********* PAGE 2 MISSING *********

5 The Defendant on the other hand testified that he was travelling towards town on the main Cork Hill Road, he made a right turn from the main Cork Hill Road into the Delvins Road. The Defendant said when he turned right he could see in front. of him. He did not see any vehicle coming along the Cork Hill Road. Continuing in his testimony. the Defendant said:

6 “After I made my turn, about three feet before entering into Delvins Road, I felt an impact. I realized that I was hit by another car. The car struck my car on the left front by the wheel — side between door and wheel.”

7 The Defendant said in cross-examination:

“It took me a matter of seconds to turn from the Cork Hill Road into Delvins Road, when the accident occurred. After I made my turn the driver on the Delvins Road wanted to say something to me so I automatically stopped on approaching the Delvins Road. My turn into the Delvins Road had completed. I had maybe 2 feet of my vehicle behind me on the main road.”

8 The Defendant called Raphael Evans who gave evidence on behalf of the Defendant. This witness said on oath that he was at the top of Delvins Road at the stop sign, going into Cork Hill, while he was there, he saw the Defendant indicate to come into Delvins Road. He heard a ‘squealing’ sound coming from another car. He did not see the other car because the Defendant's car was blocking his view. He heard an impact. He saw “the Plaintiff's car into the Defendant's car.” At the time of the impact the Defendant's car stopped close to his car. This witness denies that the Defendant had stopped to speak to him before the impact. He said it was after the impact the Defendant spoke to him. According to Evans, at the time of the impact the Defendant had completed his turn.

9 I find as a fact that the Defendant was negligent. Even on his own evidence it shows clearly that he was negligent in that, he was turning from a busy major road into a minor road when he suddenly slopped to speak to another motorist who was on the minor road. There is no doubt that the accident took place when the Defendant stopped to speak to Raphael Evans with about 2 feet of his vehicle into the main road, into the path of the Plaintiff's oncoming vehicle.

10 I find that the Plaintiff was also negligent in that, he was driving too fast in the circumstances. There was a lot of traffic on the road at that time of day. He ought to have in his contemplation that someone might be negligent and therefore drive at a reasonable speed which would allow him to stop in the event that some other person is negligent. His failure to do so amounted to negligence.

11 The Plaintiff said, he began to brake when he saw the Defendant turning in front of him. He said further, that. he first observed the Defendant's motor car when it was about thirty eight (36) feet from him, that could not, be so because the measurements taken by Corporal Chambers indicate tyre impressions of 67 feet 2 inches which means that the Plaintiff began to apply his brakes from at least that distance. Inspite of that, he was unable to stop which is, having applied brakes from that distance the damage to both motor cars were extensive. The Defendant's motor car which was at a stand still at the time of the impact was a ‘write-off’.

12 The Plaintiff said in his evidence that his car was badly...