Anthony v Lettsome et Al

• Jurisdiction: British Virgin Islands
• Court: High Court (British Virgin Islands)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 March 1975
• Neutral Citation: VG 1975 HC 1
• Docket Number: Civil Suit no. 23 of 1973
• Date: 19 March 1975

High Court

Glasgow, J.

Civil Suit no. 23 of 1973

Anthony

and

Lettsome et al

Appearances:

J.S. Archibald for plaintiff.

McW. Todman for first defendant.

Tort - Damages — Personal injury

Facts: The infant plaintiff, then 16 years old, was invited to ride in a landrover by the first defendant, an infant and the servant or agent of the second named defendant, and the third — named defendant. The first defendant drove the landrover very fast. Landrover collided with a well on the side of a road. The plaintiff suffered a fracture of the right femur and severe multiple soft tissue injuries to the face and neck, permanent scarring of the face and deformity of the right leg. The period of hospitalization extended because of a second fracture of the femur from a fall sustained while plaintiff was still in hospital.

Held: Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $13,877.60 in damages including $12,000 general damages. Damages awarded as though second fracture had not occurred.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries and loss and damage alleged to have been occasioned to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the first-named defendant, the servant or agent of the second-named defendant and the third named defendant, in the driving and managing of a land rover of registration VI 987 owned by the second-named defendant and/or the third-named defendant along the public road at Paraquita Bay in the island of Tortola in the British Virgin Islands on the 24 ^th day of March 1972.

2 An appearance was entered for Alexander Lettsome (the first-named defendant), an infant, by Ronald Lettsome, his guardian ad litem. No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the other two defendants and judgment in default of appearance was entered against the said two defendants for damages to be assessed.

3 In his defence, the first-named defendant denied that he was negligent as alleged or at all.

4 The facts, as I find them, are as follows: On the morning of the 24 ^th March, 1972 the plaintiff and his mother were at the premises of one Howard Crabbe at Fat Hogs Bay, Tortola. Shortly before 11 o'clock the first defendant called the plaintiff and invited the plaintiff to accompany him in Land Rover VI No. 987 belonging to the first defendant's father Ronald Lettsome (the third defendant) and insured in the name of Landford Lettsome (the second defendant). The plaintiff, who was then 16 years of age, got into the front passenger seat of the Land Rover. The first defendant, who was then a licensed driver, got into the driver's seat of the Land Rover and drove off in the direction of Road Town. The first defendant was driving fast. The plaintiff and the first defendant were the only occupants of the Land Rover. When the Land Rover reached Paraquita Bay, it crashed into the concrete side of a well some twenty feet from the right-hand side (or hill side) of the main road. Immediately before the crash the first defendant was driving the Land Rover at a very fast rate. The plaintiff was seriously injured as a result of the impact. There is no doubt in my mind that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in this case.

5 The first defendant in his evidence gave an explanation of the cause of the accident which I reject as being untruthful. He said, among other things, that he was coming down in fourth gear, past Whelk Point corner at about 30 miles per hour, and that he slowed down the Land Rover and moved into third gear. He said that he was then driving at about 20 miles per hour. He said that he reached Paraquita Bay curve and that as he was taking the curve he heard the sound of an explosion and that the steering wheel then started shaking in his hands. He said he could not get the steering wheel controlled, so the Land Rover ran into the well or, the hill side of the road and stopped. I believe the first defendant when he said that the right front tyre of the Land Rover was in a deflated condition after the accident, but in my view it became deflated when the Land Rover collided with the wall and not before. In my opinion, the collision was caused as a result of the first defendant losing control of the Land Rover owing to the fast speed at which he was driving it. I may mention, however, that if even I had accepted...