FRANCIS KONTOH v. J. K. AMPONG & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT
Areas of Law
- Negligence
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Plaintiff claimed General and Special damages against the Defendants for injuries sustained due to a collision caused by the 2nd Defendant's negligence. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding special and general damages as well as loss of prospective earnings.
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff was on board an articulator truck with registration number AS 5338 Z which was conveying dried cocoa beans from Juaboso to Kumasi and it collided head on with a Mercedes Benz bus with registration number GT 4525 B driven by the 2nd Defendant and owned by the 1st Defendant. These facts are undisputed.
As a result of this accident, the Plaintiff claims General and Special damages jointly and severally against the Defendants for the injuries he sustained. The Defendants deny being negligent.
Three issues were set down for this trial, namely,
1. Whether or not on the 8th January, 2011, the 2nd Defendant negligently drove, manipulated and controlled the 1st Defendant’s vehicle with Registration number GT 4525 B?
2. Whether or not the Plaintiff has suffered various degrees of injuries as a result of the accident which occurred on 8th January, 2011?
3. Whether or not the Plaintiff has been deformed and incapacitated as a result of the accident?
NEGLIGENCE
To succeed, a party alleging negligence must establish that he was owed a duty of care by his opponent and that duty was breached as a result of which he has suffered an injury or damage. In Edward Nasser v McVroom (1996-97) SCGLR 479, the Supreme Court, per Acquah JSC (as he then was) stated:
“It is trite learning that the first step in proving negligence in tort is to establish a duty of care owed by the Defendant towards the Plaintiff, which duty must arise from the nature of the relationship between them. A breach of this duty by the Defendant must be established, and finally there must be damage suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of this breach.” See also Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 where Lord Atkin propounded the neighbour test.
In Nasser’s case referred to, supra, Acquah JSC after reviewing a chain of English authorities on the subject matter came to this conclusion:
“ It is our considered opinion, however that , once the categories of negligence are not closed, although a relationship of proximity must exist before a duty of care can arise, the duty must depend on all the circumstances of the case and it must be considered whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”
The opinion of Atuguba JSC in the same case is also worthy of note. His Lordship stated with approval the pronouncement made by Abban J (as he then was) in Damalie v Kwadzie (1974) 1 GLR
In Damalie’s case, His Lordship Abban relied on the principle laid down by Lord Romer in Glasgow Co