THE Federal Supreme Court in its Civil Jurisdiction 1960, disagreed with a High Court Judge’s assertion in a claim for damages and ruled that the respondent was negligent and liable for damages to the appellant, who was a passenger in the car and was injured in the accident.The Appellant Mangaria, a passenger of the car was injured when a speeding motor cyclist, trying to evade the one-lamp car, died from injuries received in a collision with the vehicle.

The Federal Supreme Court constituted by Chief Justice Hallinan and Justices A.M. Lewis and J. F. Marnan, heard arguments and allowed the appeal, recommending that damages be assessed for the appellant.
The facts of the case disclosed that the respondent drove a car in the centre of the road one night at 20 to 25 m.p.h. His two park lights and head lamp on the left side of the car were on, but his other head lamp was not.
A motor cyclist was riding in the opposite direction at a fast rate 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 motor cycle and car in which the motor cyclist was killed and the appellant, who was a passenger in the respondent’s car, was injured.
The Federal Supreme Court held that: The respondent was negligent and his negligence had contributed to the accident and the Appeal was therefore allowed.
That Court had referred to several cases during the hearing of the appeal.
Mr. S. D. S Hardyal appeared for the appellant, while Mr. J. A. King represented the respondent.
Delivering his judgment, Chief Justice Hallinan said: “In this case the defendant respondent was driving a motor car 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 motor cyclist who was carrying a passenger on the pillion. The motor cyclist 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 head lamp which was on the near or left side of the car. The two park lights were on and the respondent admitted that he was driving in the centre of the road. On the other hand, the learned trial judge found that the motor cyclist was approaching at a very fast speed whereas the respondent’s car was only proceeding at 20 to 25 m.p. h.
The approaching motor cycle 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 of the respondent, that is, the condition of the head lamp, but also that the defective head lamp misled the the motor cyclist thereby causing or contributing to the collision between the motor car and the motor cycle.
“It must, I think, be conceded that to drive a motor car in the centre of the road is not in itself negligence. The only negligence alleged the appellant in her statement of claim was the lack of a head lamp on the off side of the motor car,” the Chief Justice explained
Counsel for the respondent objected to any argument advanced which would combine the fact of the car 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,” the Chief Justice contended.
The case cited by trial judge of Esso Petroleum Co., Ltd. v Southport Corpn was deemed inapplicable, the Chief Justice ruled.
“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 head lamp was not working and that when he saw the approaching motor cyclist he should not have continued to drive in the middle of the road,” the Chief Justice asserted.
On the authority of Wintle v. Bristol Tramways & Carrage Co., Ltd it is stated 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.
The Chief Justice said 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 motor cyclist came from the northern side of the road to the southern side and then swung back hitting the motor car.
This maneuver may have been due to the cyclist suddenly realising that he was too far to the north to avoid a vehicle which he may have first thought was a motor cycle with one light and later realised it was a car.
Then, he may have gone too far to the south and in swinging back ran into the off side of the car which was in the centre of the road, the Chief Justice said.
“In these circumstances, in my view, the appellant has established that the respondent was negligent and the negligence continued up to the time of the accident and contributed to it. In these circumstances, I would allow the appeal,” the Chief Justice said.
He added: “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.”
The other judges concurred.
Written By George Barclay