Ryner v Hunter

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Byron, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: MS 1983 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 99 of 1980
• Date: 10 March 1983

High Court

Byron, J.

Civil Suit No. 99 of 1980

Ryner

and

Hunter

Appearances:

Mr. J.C. Kelsick for plaintiff.

Mr. D.S. Brandt and Mr. K. Allen for defendant.

Tort - Damages — Fatal accident

Facts: The plaintiff claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, Cap. 27 for the death of the deceased and damages under the Causes of Action (Survival) Act, Cap. 11 for the benefit of the estate of the deceased for the loss of expectation of life and consequential loss caused to the deceased as a result of the negligent driving of the defendant. The issue was whether the defendant had been negligent in causing the deceased's death.

Held: The death was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. As to whether the plaintiff or the mother of the deceased was a dependant by virtue of the Fatal Accidents Act, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased had been or was likely to contribute to the upkeep or maintenance of the above persons. The claim under the Fatal Accidents Act failed. In relation to the action under the Causes of Action (Survival) Act the plaintiff was entitled to funeral expenses and damages for loss of expectation of life assessed at $2,000.00. Judgment for the plaintiff given in the sum of $3,500.00.

Byron, J.

1 In a generally endorsed writ the plaintiff claimed damages under the Fatal Accidents Act Cap. 27 of the Revised Laws of Montserrat as amended by Fatal Accidents Act (Amendment) Ordinance No. 12 of 1980 for the death of the deceased and damages under the Causes of Action (Survival) Act Cap. 11 of the Revised Laws of Montserrat for the benefit of the estate of the said deceased for the loss of expectation of the life and consequential loss caused to the said deceased caused by the negligent driving of the defendant on the 23 ^rd of September, 1978 at the public road at St. John's Village.

2 The defendant denied that he was negligent and alleged that the deceased caused the accident by his negligence. No admissions were made as the alleged injuries, loss or damage.

3 The facts and I found are:

4 About 6 p.m. on 23 ^rd September 1978, Peter Dyett was sitting on a wall outside Ann Morgan's Rum Shop at St. John's Village. A number of other people were in the vicinity, some on the side of the road on which he was and some on the other side of the road. A political meeting was scheduled for that evening at that spot and was due to commence at 7.00 p.m. The meeting was to be held by John Dublin

5 While he was there a green station wagon owned by John Dublin drove up from West to East and stopped on the North Side of the road. Peter Dyett estimated that the car was about 25 feet away from him when it stopped.

6 Samuel Rayner got out of the car and went to the back of the station wagon, opened up the back of it and did something at the back there. It was suggested that he removed loudspeakers for the meeting. He then turned away from the back of the car and started to move away in a Southerly direction.

7 The geography at that spot is that the road runs East and West. It has a steep incline so that a car coming from the East is going down hill. Ann Morgan's shop is on the North of the road and a road runs off the main road beside her shop at right angles. It is a T-junction.

8 The defendant was an electrician employed by the Montserrat Electric Company. He had gone to the top of St. John's to repair a transformer about 4.30 that afternoon. It took him about 15 minutes to repair it. At about 6.p.m. or shortly after he was going from St. John's towards Sweeney's where he lives and was driving at a fast speed down the incline from East to West in the vicinity of Ann Morgan's shop in his motor car M.1511. At that time he knew that there was going to be political meeting at that vicinity. As he approached the shop he saw his mother in law Barba Hogan and started slowing up to see if she would wave at him to stop.

9 He also saw the deceased Samuel Ryner but he could not stop his vehicle in time or avoid colliding with him. Some people in the area screamed. Peter Dyett looked and saw the defendant's car pass at a fast speed with Samuel Ryner perched on the bonnet. The car came to a standstill some distance away more or less in the middle of the road. Samuel Ryner's body came to rest on the road to the car and the body. By the time they could reach him Samuel Ryner was dead. Peter Dyett was crying and he told the defendant that he had done it on purpose because he knew a meeting was there and he should not have run so fast. In his evidence the defendant said that when he say Samuel Ryner he applied his brakes hard. There was no tyre marks in the road after the accident and the defendant said that the reason for this was his car had an independent braking system for each wheel. There was no evidence to suggest that the defendant swerved.

10 The defendant stayed in his car with his over the steering wheel. The grill of the car was dented, the bonnet was dented and the windscreen was completely smashed.

11 Sgt. Taylor who was then stationed at Cudjoe Head Police Station had left to come to St. John's to be on duty at the meeting.

12 When he reached the scene it was about 6.50 p.m. By that time the body of Samuel Ryner deceased was covered. He examined it. He also went to the defendant's car. He was still sitting in it. Sgt. Taylor asked him to account for the accident on a number of occasions but he did not reply. The defendant then got out of his car and went away. At the trial he explained that he went to get a drink of water. He returned about half an hour later and when Sgt. Taylor spoke to him again he said, “I was coming down the road at about 20-25 m.p.h. and he ran across me and the car hit him.”

13 Sgt. Taylor then asked the defendant to assist him in the taking of measurements. The defendant showed Sgt. Taylor a spot to indicate where his car was when he first saw Samuel Ryner. Sgt. Taylor marked it with white paint. The defendant showed Sgt. Taylor a spot to indicate where Samuel Ryner was when he first saw him. This was also marked with white paint. He then showed him where the point of impact was.

14 The measurements, which Sgt. Taylor took as a result of what the defendant said at the time, included the following information:

Distance from where the defendant first
saw deceased to point of impact	9 feet
Distance from point of impact to rear
bumper of defendant's car	32 feet 3 inches
Distance from point of impact to where
deceased was lying	31 feet 7 inches

15 The defendant's car was examined and found to be in good condition. The braking system and the tyres were in good condition.

16 Sgt. Taylor did not investigate the matter further on that night and did not take information from any by standers at that time.

17 By 25 ^th September 1978, Sgt. Taylor had received further information. On that day he went back to the scene of the accident and with him one John Barzey and the defendant. In the presence of the defendant, Barzey pointed out certain positions to Sgt. Taylor.

18 Barzey pointed out to Sgt. Taylor the position where he said the car struck the deceased and Sgt. Taylor marked that with white paint.

19 Sgt. Taylor then took certain further measurements and there included the following:

Distance from point of impact pointed out by Barzey to that pointed out by the defendant Distance from point of impact pointed out by	76 feet
Barzey to mark on road indicating where Deceased head was	108 feet
Distance from point of impact pointed out by Barzey to back of M.1511	94 feet
Distance from point of impact pointed Out by Barzey to Ann Morgan's shop	19 feet 8 inches

20 I believe that the car M.1511 struck the deceased Samuel Ryner in the vicinity of the green station wagon, which was parked, close to Ann Morgan's Shop. This seems to me to be consistent with the evidence of Peter Dyett and with the point of impact pointed out by Barzey. It seems from both sets of measurement as well as from Peter Dyett's testimony that the car came to a stand still some distances away form Ann Morgan's shop and that is consistent with the evidence given by Peter Dyett that the car was travelling at a fast speed when it collided with the deceased. The fact that the body was picked up in such a manner and at such a momentum that the windscreen was completely smashed is also consistent with high speed.

21 I believe that the collision between M.1511 and the deceased Samuel Ryner was caused solely by the negligence of the defendant in that he drove down the road at a speed that was to fast having regard to the fact that it was down hill to the number of people who were in fact on the road or which he ought reasonably to have expected to be on the road and which made it impossible for him to bring his car to a standstill in or to manoeuvre it to avoid striking Samuel Ryner when he saw him in the road.

22 No medical evidence was called in this case and so there was no evidence to show in any technical sense what the cause of death was. However in a Civil Case the plaintiff is required to prove his case on the balance of probabilities and it is most probable, that the car having struck Samuel Ryner and immediately after the impact he died, that his death was caused by being struck in that manner by the car. I believed that the death of Samuel Ryner was...