Ange Felix Olivaccee Defendant/Appellant v Christford Jno. Charles Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
JudgeLOUISY, J.A. (Ag.), ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date20 Mar 1973
Neutral Citation[1973] ECSC J0320-3
Docket NumberMagistrate's Civil Appeal
[1973] ECSC J0320-3

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Acting Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Louisy (Ag.)

Magistrate's Civil Appeal

No. 1 of 1973

Between:
Ange Felix Olivaccee
Defendant/Appellant
and
Christford Jno. Charles
Plaintiff/Respondent

C.C. Beausoliel for defendant/appellant

R.H. Lockhart for plaintiff/respondent

LOUISY, J.A. (Ag.)
1

This is an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate District E, given on a claim for damages for negligence. The particulars of the claim are as follows:—

2

"The plaintiff claims $132,00 for that on the 16th December, 1970 in Roseau the defendant so negligently drove his motor vehicle No. 998 as to cause it to collide with the plaintiff's motor truck No. 803 and damaged the same whereby the plaintiff has been put to loss and expense. The claim was subsequently amended to include negligence by the appellant's servant or agent."

3

The claim was heard on the 12th October, 1972 and after considering the evidence the learned Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $132.00 damages and cost $23.76. The appellant being dissatisfied with this decision appealed to this Court on the following grounds:—

  • (1) that the judgment pronounced by the learned magistrate is unreasonable.

  • (2) there is no evidence to support the learned magistrate's finding that the relationship of master and servant or that as of principal and agent existed as between the defendant and the person driving he defendant's motor vehicle.

  • (3) there is no evidence to support the learned magistrate's finding that the person driving the defendant's motor vehicle was negligent.

  • (4) the learned magistrate erred in granting the amendment to the plaintiff after the plaintiff had closed his case and after counsel for the defendant had concluded his address to the Court.

4

The facts of the case are very simple. Edric Jno Charles was driving his father's truck on the Loubiere road in the direction of Roseau when he reached somewhere at New Town he pulled up on the side of the road on a no parking spot as he said he saw a motor car approaching in the opposite direction. Alter the motor car passed he moved and got back in the line of traffic. As soon as he reached a motor car which was parked in front of him he heard a noise at the side of his truck. He looked and saw his right mudguard was cut in two by jeep No. 998. He spoke to the driver of the jeep...

To continue reading

Request your trial