IN 1960, the Federal Supreme Court found that a poorly lit motorcar, travelling between New Amsterdam and Corentyne, resulted in a collision with a motorcycle, the rider of which subsequently died.The Appellant, Mangaria, a passenger of the motorcar who was injured in the accident, sued the Defendant, Dhowkee Pasram, for damages in keeping with the trial judge’s findings.

The Federal Supreme Court, then constituted by Chief Justice Hallinan and Justices of Appeal Lewis and Marnan, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeal and referred the matter back to the trial judge or another Court for assessment of damages.
The facts of the case disclosed that the Respondent drove a motorcar in the centre of the road at night at 20 to 25mph. His two park lights and the headlamp on the left side of the car were on, but his other head lamp was not.
A motorcyclist was riding in the opposite direction at a fast rate of speed, with a passenger on the pillion seat, and was seen by the Respondent to swerve from side to side. The Respondent continued to drive in the centre of the road, and there was a collision between the two vehicles, in which the cyclist was killed and the Appellant, who was a passenger in the Respondent’s motorcar, was injured.
The Appellate Court held that the Respondent was negligent, and that it was his negligence that had contributed to the accident.
In allowing the appeal, the Federal Supreme Court had referred to a number of cases. Mr. S.D.S. Hardyal, S. C., appeared for the Appellant, while Mr. J.A. King, S.C. , represented the Respondent.
In his judgment, Justice Hallinan said: “In this case, the Defendant (Respondent) was driving a motorcar along the road from New Amsterdam in the direction of Corentyne at night, carrying as a passenger the plaintiff (Appellant).
“He came into collision with a motorcyclist, who was carrying a passenger on the pillion. The motorcyclist was killed as a result of the accident, and the Appellant, a passenger in the Respondent’s car, was injured. The Appellant has sued the Respondent for damages for negligence, in that he did not drive ,while she was in the car with that care and skill required of him in the performance of his duty to the Appellant.
“The learned trial judge found that the Respondent was driving his car that night with only one headlamp, which was on the near or left side of the car. The two park lights were on.The Respondent admitted that he was driving in the centre of the road.
“On the other hand, the learned trial judge found that the motorcyclist was approaching at a very fast speed, whereas the Respondent’s car was proceeding at 20 to 25m.p.h. The approaching motorcycle was seen swerving from one side of the road to the other.
“In these circumstances, the trial judge directed himself thus: He said it was necessary to establish not only the knowledge of the defect by the Respondent — that is , the condition of the headlamp — but also the defective headlamp misled the driver of the motorcyclist, thereby causing or contributing to the collision between the motorcar and the motorcycle.
“It must, I think, be conceded that to drive a motorcar in the centre of the road is not, in itself, negligence. The only negligence alleged by the Appellant in the Statement of Claim was the lack of a head lamp on the off-side of the motorcar. Counsel for the Respondent has objected to any argument being advanced, which would combine the fact of the motorcar being driven in the centre of the road with the defect in the head lamp.
“I think that the fact of the car being driven in the middle of the road was a surrounding circumstance; a collateral fact to the alleged negligence of driving with a defective headlight. I do not think that the Appellant should be precluded from arguing that the danger of driving with a defective head lamp would be aggravated if he drove in the middle of the road.
“In these circumstances, the case cited to us of Esso Petroleum Co., Ltd. v. Southport Corpn. (1) does not apply.
“I think that the learned trial judge should have found as a fact that the Respondent, with reasonable care, ought to have known that the off-side headlamp was not working, and that when he saw the approaching motorcycle he should not have continued to drive in the middle of the road.
“On the authority of Wintle v. Bristol Tramways & Carriage Co. Ltd. (2), it misstated in Charles-Worth on Negligence, 3rd Edn., p. 99, that failure to carry the usual lights, which misleads the driver of another vehicle, and causes a collision, is negligence.
“It is true that the motor cyclist is dead and we have no direct evidence from him, whether he was misled or not. According to the evidence of the respondent , shortly before the accident the cyclist came over to the northern side of the road to the southern side and then swung back hitting the motor car .
“This manoeuvre may have been due to the cyclist suddenly realising that he a motor cycle with one light and later realised it was a motor car. Then he may have gone too far to the south and in swinging back ran into the off side of the motor car which was in the centre of the road.
“In these circumstances, in my view, the Appellant has established that the Tespondent was negligent, and that this negligence continued up to the time of the accident, and contributed to it.
“In these circumstances I would allow the appeal. It is conceded by the Respondent that if contributory negligence is proved, he is liable for the whole damages. Should the parties fail to agree on damages within one month, then the case must be referred back to the Lower Court for assessment of damages. I would allow costs both here and below. “