Kevin Rodney Charles v Devon Pierre

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Moise, M.
• Judgment Date: 08 January 2019
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2019] ECSC J0108-1
• Docket Number: Claim Number: GDAHCV2016/0155
• Court: Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
• Date: 08 January 2019

[2019] ECSC J0108-1

EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Before:

Master Ermin Moise

Claim Number: GDAHCV2016/0155

Between

Kevin Rodney Charles

Claimant

and

Devon Pierre

Defendant

Appearances:

Ms. Hazel Hopkins of counsel for the Claimant

Defendant in Person

Moise, M.

1 This is an application for an assessment of damages. On 17 ^th May, 2017 the parties filed a consent order in which the defendant accepted liability with damages to be assessed. The parties have filed witness statements and legal submissions in support of and in opposition to the assessment. On 10 ^th October, 2018 counsel on record for the defendant was granted leave to withdraw from the record. The Defendant agreed however, that the assessment of damages should proceed on the written submissions already filed by counsel prior to the order for withdrawal.

2 The facts of the case are generally not in dispute. The claimant states that on 31 ^st January, 2015 he was driving his pickup truck along the Westerhall main road. He asserts that the defendant so negligently drove his omnibus so as to cause physical damage to his truck. He now claims compensation under two separate heads of damages. Firstly, he claims special damages for the total cost of repairs to his truck. Secondly, he claims loss of use and asserts that he was unable to operate the truck for an extensive period of time due to the damage done as a result of the accident. I will examine each of these in turn.

Special Damages for repairs to the claimant's truck

3 At paragraph 19 of his witness statement, the claimant sates that he expended “several sums in repairs (inclusive of repair parts and labour)”. He itemized and exhibited receipts and invoices in order to substantiate his claim. The invoices, presented in the witness statement total $44,429.09. However, in the legal submissions filed in support of the assessment, counsel for the claimant indicates that the amount claimed should be reduced by $11,200.00 due to duplication in some of the invoices presented. It is therefore submitted that the special damages, after considering the remaining invoices should amount to $33,229.09.

4 In opposition to this submission, the defendant argues that the court is not in a position to ascertain the type and extent of the damages claimed by the claimant. He asserts that no professional survey or mechanic's report was exhibited to clearly identify the damage as well as a proper cost for the repairs. The defendant also argues that in the absence of a professional report, the court is unable to determine whether or not it was economical for the claimant to undertake the repairs. Given the claimant's duty to mitigate his losses, he ought to have satisfied the court that it was best to incur such costs in repairs rather than purchase a similar motor vehicle on the open market. In support of this argument the defendant refers to the case of Vincent Jones v. Kevin Gervais 1 where the master stated the following:

“The learning is clear that a claimant cannot insist on repairs at the defendant's expense if it would be more economical to purchase a similar vehicle on the open market. It is only where no substitute is available or no other reasonable alternative that a claimant would be entitled to have his vehicle repaired.”

5 The claimant asserts in his witness statement that there was no agent for the make and type of this truck in Grenada. As such, he had some difficulty in sourcing the parts in order to undertake the repairs. He argues that the traffic accident report contains a list of the damages which the vehicle sustained and relies on that in lieu of a professional examination report. However, I agree with the submissions of the defendant. The traffic accident report is not an expert's report on the actual damage caused to the claimant's truck. It merely outlines the observations made by the police

officers who attended to the accident on the scene. Given the substantial amount of money he claims to have spent in repairs, it would have been proper for the claimant to have presented an expert's report outlining the damage to the motor vehicle and the expected cost of repair. Further, such a report ought also to have contained the...