BERFI v. OWUSU
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- BAIDOO J
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
1966
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence after being involved in an accident caused by the defendant's driver. The court found the defendant's driver solely negligent and awarded the plaintiff damages, including costs related to the injury, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. The case also explored the admissibility of a guilty plea in civil proceedings.
JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.
I believe the evidence of the plaintiff that on 2 March 1962 as he was travelling from Senchem on his motor vehicle No. AN 1748 the defendant's timber truck No. AN 7807 loaded with timber logs and travelling in the same direction towards Kumasi at a terrific speed tried to overtake his, the plaintiff's vehicle which was then loaded with some 22 passengers, the plaintiff's vehicle being a one and half ton Bedford commercial lorry. According to the plaintiff the incident happened near Potrikrom about 27 miles from Kumasi at a portion of the road which was so narrow that the defendant's driver should not have attempted to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle at all, but the defendant's driver negligently drove on at a terrific speed and as he was about to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle, the defendant's driver so recklessly drove the defendant's timber truck that an iron bar fixed on the timber truck hooked the plaintiff's vehicle which was thereby pushed with great force into the ditch on the left hand or near side of the road as one faces Kumasi. The plaintiff himself received severe head injuries and he lost consciousness as a result of the accident.
One of the passengers travelling on the plaintiff's lorry at the time was Kofi Karikari who was also injured. He gave evidence as the plaintiff's first witness confirming the plaintiff's evidence. The defendant never once attended court and he failed therefore to give any evidence in opposition. Three inconsistent pleadings were in the course of the proceedings filed by the defendant's solicitors. In the defendant’s original pleadings filed on 8 May 1964 the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that the accident happened when the defendant’s timber truck was trying to overtake the plaintiff’s lorry. On 7 September 1964 the defendant amended his pleadings and stated that it was rather the plaintiff's vehicle which was overtaking the defendant's timber truck when the accident happened. Then on 19 October 1965 the defendant's solicitors filed yet another amended pleadings this time stating that the defendant "neither owned vehicle No. 7807 on 2 March 1962, nor was the said vehicle involved in any accident on that date." However the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to support his defence and as I believe the plaintiff and the plaintiff's first witness, Kofi Karikari, I find as a fact that the accident happened when the defendant's heavily loaded timber truck was trying to overtake the pl