By his writ of summons the plaintiff claimed: ¢350,000 being the cost of his Opel Reckord saloon car registered as GS 9036; damages for loss of use of the said vehicle at ¢300 per day from 4 April 1982 to the date of judgment and interest on the amount due at the current rate of interest. The plaintiff’s case is that he owned the said Opel car. He drove it on the Accra-Winneba Road on 2 April 1982. At a point near the Densu River he saw some vehicles parked by the bridge over the river. At the same time he sighted an on-coming vehicle being driven from the opposite direction. He therefore brought his car to a stop behind the other parked vehicles. A bus then being driven from his rear attempted to overtake his car. In the process the bus collided with the on-coming vehicle and crashed into his stationary Opel car.
According to the plaintiff, the car was damaged beyond economic repair. He averred that he was a farmer and he used that car on his farming business. Having lost the use of the car he resorted to other means of moving about in connection with his business which cost him ¢300 per day. Hence his claim for the reliefs set out in his writ which I have outlined already. At the end of the plaintiff’s [p.91] case, counsel for the defendants conceded that the defence would not dispute liability for the accident. It was part of the case of the plaintiff that the bus in question belonged to the second defendant-company and was being driven at the time of the accident by the first defendant, an employee of the second defendant, in the course of his employment. The first defendant who drove the bus is therefore found liable for the accident. The second defendant-company as owners of the bus are also held vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the first defendant. For their negligence, the two defendants are jointly and severally liable in damages to the plaintiff. The only bone of contention between the parties is the quantum of damages to be awarded the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed that he bought the car in 1981 at the cost of ¢350,000. Throughout the cross-examination of his evidence no specific question was put to the plaintiff to challenge him on the value he placed on the car. He conceded that he bought the car as a second-hand vehicle and that it was first registered in 1974 but questions relating to these points did not mean that the defence disputed the value placed on the car. The cross-examination was completely silent on the claim
