AGOGRO v. AGO AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.

The plaintiff, a 22-year-old seamstress trading at the sea port town of Tema sustained serious injuries when a vehicle in which she was travelling ended up in a culvert after an accident at Kpong on 30 May 1968. Her injuries included a number of cuts on her lips and face and fractures on her left thigh and shoulder. There were also injuries to her right wrist and her tongue, with a permanent impairment of speech and gait. But her greatest misfortune arising from the accident was the termination of her pregnancy. It appears that at the time of the accident she was seven to eight months gone. The medical certificate which reads like a medical dictionary has a whole catalogue of injuries the plaintiff sustained. The final medical opinion is as follows:

"She will be permanently incapacitated by the loss of movement at the left shoulder, loss of power in the small muscles of both the hands and spastic gait giving rise to considerable difficulty in moving around. In addition, she must have gone through a considerable physical and mental agony from loss of a baby which was almost full term which might carry a repercussion in her future well being.

[p.49]

I assess her permanent disability at:

Cord dysfunction .. .. .. .. 45% (Forty-five per cent)

Shift left shoulder .. .. .. .. 8% (eight)

Miscarriage .. .. .. .. .. 15% (fifteen)

Total .. .. .. .. .. .. 68% (sixty-eight)."

This suit stems from the aforesaid injuries the plaintiff sustained and she consequently claims from the first defendant as driver of the vehicle and the second defendants as the owners of the said vehicle and masters of the first defendant, damages in compensation.

The first defendant did not contest the suit though served with the writ and statement of claim on 25 March 1969. Consequently on 20 March 1972 interlocutory judgment was entered against him. The second defendants however resisted liability strenuously. Though they admit the first defendant was in their employment they claim he committed a prohibited act by taking passengers in his vehicle and deviated from the course of his employment literally and figuratively. They accordingly repudiate liability.

1. Issue of negligence

The plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs (4) and (6) (d) of his statement of claim the following:

"(4) On or about the 30th day of May 1968, the first defendant whilst in charge of the said vehicle in the course of his employment with the second defendants drove so negligently and