Coakley v Fraser

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Georges, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 06 November 1985
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: Common Law Side No. 1150 of 1983
• Date: 06 November 1985

Supreme Court

Georges, C.J.

Common Law Side No. 1150 of 1983

Coakley

and

Fraser

Appearances:

Mr. Cedric Parker for the plaintiff.

Mr. Malcolm Adderley for the defendant.

Damages - Negligence — Collision between motor car and horse at highway junction — Damages for repairs to plaintiff's car and cost of hiring another car while plaintiff's was being repaired.

Tort - Negligence — Liability — Collision between motor car and horse at highway junction.

Georges, C.J.

1 The dispute in this case concerns an accident which took place in the vicinity of Blue Hill Road and Soldier Road on the 10th of April, 1983 at about 1p.m. Blue Hill Road runs north to south. Soldier Road goes off westwards from Blue Hill Road. Very slightly south of that junction there is a road running eastwards which is marked on the agreed plan as Soldier Road East but has been referred to in the evidence as Bluedale Road as well. It was a clear day and the road was dry.

2 The plaintiff was driving a motor car Registration Number 14240 north along Blue Hill Road when she ran into a horse in the vicinity of the junction of that road and Bluedale Road. After the impact she ended up north of the Bluedale Road junction almost opposite a small stall from which softdrinks are sold. The horse ended up on the eastern side of Blue Hill Road near the southern junction of that road and Soldier Road. An important point of controversy centres on the accident. The plaintiff says that as she approached that junction driving at about 20 m.p.h., she suddenly saw the horse emerge at a gallop from the direction of Bluedale Road. She applied her brakes and swerved to the right but nonetheless was unable to avoid the accident.

3 The plaintiff's witness, Mr. Turnquest, states that he was walking along Bluedale Road towards Blue Hill Road when he suddenly became aware of the pounding of horses hooves. A horse appeared going South along Blue Hill Road and suddenly turned and galloped into Bluedale Road. Its speed was such that it was unable to negotiate the corner completely. Its legs became entangled with a fallen fence some 20 feet inside of Bluedale Road and on the southern side of that road. The horse struggled with the entanglement, eventually freed itself, and returned galloping towards Blue Hill Road turning south. Immediately this happened he heard the sound of brakes and he saw the impact. The horse was thrown, ending up on the eastern side of the road as has already been described. It was unable to get up. The car continued and eventually ended up parking in front of the softdrinks stand to which he himself was going. He described the point of impact as being about 20 feet away from the southern junction of Bluedale Road and Blue Hill Road.

4 The defendant gave a different version of the event. He said that he had been following the horse in his van. As he came over the hill on Blue Hill Road he saw the horse galloping south along that road. There was a line of cars also travelling south and he sought to overtake them in order to reach the horse. Cars were coming from Church in that area and this prevented him doing this in one manoeuvre. He was weaving in and out of the traffic in order to move ahead of it but he was able nonetheless to keep an eye on the horse. As the horse neared the corner of Bluedale Road and Blue Hill Road it swerved 3-4 feet off the road and then swerved back. At that time the car was travelling south and load the driver been keeping a proper lookout, the driver would have seen the approaching horse and could have brought the car to a halt. Nonetheless the driver continued and as a result an accident took place some 45-50 feet on the southern side of the junction of Blue Hill Road and Bluedale Road.

5 It has been contended that there is a considerable difference in the versions given by Mr. Turnquest and by the plaintiff. I do not think there is. In an accident of this sort which happens unexpectedly, a difference of 20 feet in fixing the point of impact does not appear to me to be in any way remarkable having regard to the varying viewpoints from which the incidents are seen. It is very clear that Mr. Turnquest had not quite reached the junction of Bluedale Road and Blue Hill Road, and yet he was in a position to see the impact. This indicates that it must have taken place quite close to the junction if not actually upon it. His evidence is also important from the point of view that it places the horse out of sight for some while to a person driving south on Blue Hill Road. This would have been the period while it was struggling to free itself from the fence. Such a driver would not necessarily have noted the horse galloping from the northern part of Blue Hill road to the point where it turned into Bluedale Road.

6 There is also some question as to the speed at which the plaintiff was travelling. She said she was travelling at 20 m.p.h. For my part I find this difficult to believe. As far as traffic in Nassau is concerned this would be a positively funereal pace and one at which one would hardly expect to see anyone travelling at any time unless there are serious obstacles in the way. It is true that there were persons leaving Church but nonetheless I am satisfied that she must have been travelling at a speed somewhat above 20 m.p.h. The defendant puts her at travelling over 30 m.p.h., but he was clearly estimating the speed from a position from which any accurate estimate would be indeed difficult. He was at a distance of 90-100 yards away. He was weaving in and out of traffic and concentrating considerably on that. He was also keeping an eye on the horse which was his primary object of concern. Against that background his estimate of her speed cannot be relied upon.

7 On the other hand it is clear that the plaintiff brought her car to a stop quite shortly after the point of impact, the distance not being very much greater than that of the width of Bluedale Road with perhaps 5 or 6 feet added. From all this I infer that although she may have been exceeding 20 m.p.h. she certainly was not driving at a speed which could in any sense be described as excessive, having regard to the circumstances.

8 I find that the accident took place because the horse emerged at a gallop unexpectedly from Bluedale Road into Blue Hill Road at a time when the plaintiff was so close to the junction that it was unreasonable to have expected her successfully to stop or swerve so as to avoid it. In the circumstances I do not think that the accident was caused by negligence on her part.

9 There has been some criticism of the plaintiff's description of her course immediately following the impact and this has been urged as evidence of her general unreliability as a witness. While the criticism is clearly understandable I do not think that it affects my view of her credibility. It is very difficult to describe precisely what followed immediately after an accident. To some extent one's evidence is in part recollection and in part reconstruction....