JUDGMENT
Plaintiff claims from the defendants -
General and Special Damages jointly and severally against the defendants resulting from an accident in which the plaintiff's vehicle No.GE 3789 W, a Kia Truck was damaged due to the negligent careless and dangerous driving by the 1st defendant of the 2nd defendant's vehicle No. AS 2618 Q, a Hundai Grace at Ziope.
Punitive Costs.
Any other remedies/reliefs that the court deems fit and appropriate.
In his statement of claim, the plaintiff averred that on the 9th day of September, 2011 at Ziope the 1st defendant in charge of vehicle No. AS 2618 Q as driver and belonging to the 2nd defendant was involved in an accident involving plaintiff's vehicle No. GE 3789.
It is his case that the drivers of the two vehicles and all passengers were injured and the two vehicles extensively damaged.
Plaintiff said that the accident happened because the 1st defendant lost control of his vehicle No. AS 2618 Q as he went into the lane of the oncoming vehicles. Also the 1st defendant drove his vehicle negligently and without due care and attention resulting in the accident causing injuries and the damage to the vehicle.
Plaintiff pleaded the particulars of negligence -
Driving without due care and attention.
Failing to observe the road and keep in proper lane. Failing to stop when it was expedient to do so.
Driving at an unacceptable speed. e) Alternatively, the plaintiff would rely on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor.
It is his claim that he has suffered special damages which he listed as -
Los of use at GH¢70.00per day with effect from 9/9/2010 to date of payment.
Cost of repairs at GH¢5000.00.
The vehicle makes an average of between GHC1500.00 and GH¢2000.00 per month.
Plaintiff further avers that he had received the sum of GHC1000.00 from the insurers of the 2nd defendant and bore the rest of the cost of repairs which were completed by 15/10/2011. When he wrote to the 2nd defendant on the accident and his claim, the 2nd defendant wrote back that she had sold the vehicle No. AS 2618 Q to another person at the time of the accident.
Plaintiff added that checks at the DVLA revealed that there has been no change of ownership of the vehicle therefore the 2nd defendant remains vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st defendant.
On the 30/12/2011 the 2nd defendant filed a motion on notice for the substitution of the purchaser of the said vehicle No.AS 2618 Q from her that is Samuel Dorpenyo. It is her case that she
