Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 8, 1963
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF PREMPEH J.
In this case, the plaintiff claims against the first defendant as owner and against the second defendant as hirer of Renault car No. ER 132 the sum of £G505 being amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff when his Mercedes Benz car No. AG 1234 was involved in an accident with the said Renault car No. ER 132 as a result of the negligent driving of the second defendant.
[p.269]
The plaintiff withdrew against the first defendant after the latter's defence had disclosed no cause of action against him, and for the purpose of this judgment, the second defendant shall hereafter be referred to as "the defendant."
By his statement of defence, the defendant denied that the accident was caused by his negligence, and he pleaded in the alternative that if even he was negligent, which he denied, the accident was caused by the contributory negligence of the driver of the plaintiff’s car No. AG 1234.
The facts of the case are that on or about the 20th October, 1961, the plaintiff was travelling in his said car from Accra to Kumasi, being driven by his chauffeur, and upon arriving at a point near a Mobil oil petrol filling station on the main Koforidua Broadway Street, his car which was travelling behind the defendant's vehicle No. ER 132, ran into the defendant's said vehicle thereby occasioning considerable damage to the plaintiff's car.
It was the plaintiff’s case that as his car approached the defendant's vehicle, the defendant signalled that he was entering the petrol filling station which was on the left-hand side of the road, and that without further warning the defendant's vehicle swerved again immediately towards the right, and that was how it happened that his car ran into the defendant's vehicle. He claims in these circumstances that the defendant was negligent and therefore responsible for the damage done to his car. The amount of £G505 which the plaintiff claims represents £G430 for loss of use of his said car No. AG 1234, from the 20th October, 1961, to the 13th January, 1962, at £G5 per day, and £G75 being his proportion of the risk in accordance with the terms of his insurance policy.
The defendant's evidence was a denial that he signalled first towards the left and then swerved to the right, and was to the effect that he gave a signal indicating that he was moving towards the right in order to enter into a side street on the right-hand side of the road, and that plaintiff's car which was travelling at a terrific speed viole
AI Generated Summary
Prempeh J decided a civil negligence suit arising from a road collision in Koforidua between the plaintiff’s Mercedes Benz AG 1234 and the defendant’s Renault ER 132. The plaintiff withdrew against the owner of ER 132 and pursued the hirer, alleging the defendant first signalled left toward a Mobil oil filling station then suddenly turned right, causing impact. The defendant maintained he had signalled right to enter a side street and that the plaintiff’s car, travelling at terrific speed, hit him. Police measurements revealed extensive brake marks and a 37‑foot road, estimating 45–55 mph in town, and that the defendant was turning right near the point of impact. Applying R. v. Moreau, the court admitted the defendant’s careless‑driving conviction on a guilty plea as prima facie evidence, but, weighing independent evidence, apportioned fault 80/20 and awarded the plaintiff £G33, with each party bearing their own costs.