JUDGMENT OF MENSAH BOISON J.A.
Mensah Boison J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Ho, dated 10 November 1980. By that judgment the appellants (hereafter called the defendants) were found liable in substantial damages for damage caused to the five-ton Bedford tanker of the first respondent (hereafter called the owner) as a result of the negligent driving of the first defendant.
The facts which gave rise to the action were straight-forward, and may be briefly stated. On 17 April 1978, the owner of the tanker and the second respondent (hereafter called the second plaintiff) as the driver in charge of the tanker, registered as No. GL 4146, were travelling from Tema to Denu, when at a point near Laklevi village, on the Agbozume - Denu road, the first defendant, driving a Bedford threeton truck, ran head on into the owner's tanker. The truck being driven by the first defendant, with registration No. GS 2041, belonged to the Ministry Agriculture, a fact which explains the presence of the Attorney-General as the second defendant representing the Ghana Government. The first defendant was travelling in the opposite direction from Aflao to Adidome, and the time was about 7.30 p.m., with both vehicles having their headlights on.
[p.1006]
The learned trial judge accepted the evidence that on sighting the Ministry of Agriculture truck some distance away, the second plaintiff dipped his headlights, and being somewhat apprehensive of the approaching vehicle, pulled further into his own lane of traffic, right unto the verge of the road. For extra caution the second plaintiff, at the same slowed down his speed considerably. But the Ministry of Agriculture truck was observed still wandering off its lane of traffic, and eventually struck at the front, then at the rear offside of the tanker. The tanker reeled down on its near side into a ditch, with the Ministry of Agriculture truck sitting on top of the tanker.
The first defendant admitted the fact of the collision having occurred in the lane of the tanker, although he would describe the impact as a mere graze. Consequently, his protestations that the second plaintiff put on full headlights on getting nearer to him, and so blinded him to stray into the second plaintiff's lane, could not avail him in his plea of contributory negligence. The learned judge held that the collision was attributable wholly to the negligent driving of the first defendant and so he
