Kemuel Stuart v Rodney Darville

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Winder, J
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2022
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: 2020/CLE/gen/00509

Between

Kemuel Stuart

First Plaintiff

and

Tanjanecka Bell

Second Plaintiff

and

Rodney Darville

First Defendant

and

Julian Brown

Second Defendant

Before Hon. Mr. Justice Ian R. Winder

2020/CLE/gen/00509

IN THE SUPREME COURT

Common Law and Equity Division

APPEARANCES:

Donovan Gibson for the Plaintiffs

Roger Minnis for the Defendants

RULING

Winder, J

This is a dispute arising from a traffic accident which took place on 6 ^th June 2019 on Market Street in the vicinity of John Road in New Providence.

1 The short facts which I accept were that the Second Plaintiff (Bell) was travelling in a 2009 Mitsubishi Galant south on Market Street in the western lane when she was struck by a 1985 Ford Dump Truck driven by the Second Defendant (Brown).

2 Market Street is a one-way street with dual lanes. Brown was originally in the eastern lane along Market Street when he entered the western lane hitting Bell. Bell had been established in that lane when she was struck by Brown. Brown left the scene after the incident and before the police arrived. Brown had to be located to be made to account for the accident.

3 The incident was captured on the surveillance video of a neighbouring building. The video was entered into evidence.

4 Brown was charged with driving without due care and attention and failing to remain stationary to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted on 24 September 2019.

5 The 2009 Galant is owned by the First Plaintiff (Stuart). The 1985 Ford Dump Truck is owned by the First Defendant (Darville).

6 This action was commenced by specially indorsed Writ of Summons. The Statement of Claim indorsed thereon provides:

3. On the 7 ^th June 2019 the Second Defendant was driving the First Defendant's vehicle along Market Street heading South in the East lane in an attempt to make a right turn from the East lane, cut across the First Plaintiffs vehicle which was driving in the west lane and collided with the First Plaintiffs vehicle which resulted in loss and damage to the First Plaintiff's vehicle.

4. The said accident was caused by the negligence of the Second Defendant and by a Royal Bahamas Police Force Road Accident Report dated the 19 ^th September 2019 was charged with driving without due care and attention contrary to Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act and failing to remain stationary after a traffic accident contrary to Section 56(1) & (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

5. By a Certificate of Conviction, the Second Defendant appeared before Acting Magistrate Darron D. Ellis of the Traffic Court, Magistrate's Court #12 Nassau Street Complex on the 24 ^th September 2019 and entered a guilty plea to both counts. He was fined a total of $225.00.

Particulars of Negligence

• i. Driving too fast.

• ii. Failing to keep any or any proper look out and/or to observe or heed the presence of the Second Plaintiff

• iii. Failing to see the Second Plaintiff in sufficient time to avoid colliding with him (sic) or at all

• iv. Failing to stop, to slow down, to swerve, or in any other way so to manage or control the said vehicle as to avoid the collision.

• v. Failing to stay in his lane

Particulars of Special Damage

Cost to repair vehicle	$ 7,755.78
Rental Expense	$ 4,800.00
Estimate	$ 20.00
Total	$12,575.78

6. The Plaintiff further claims interest on any sum found due at such a rate and for such periods as the Court deems just pursuant to Section 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure (Award of Interest) Act.

AND the Plaintiff claims:-

• 1. The sum of $12,575.78

• 2. Damages

• 3. Interest pursuant to the Civil Procedure (Award of Interest) Act

• 4. Costs.

• 5. Further or other relief as the Court deems fit

7 The Defence filed on behalf of the Defendants provides:

4. The 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants admit paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs Statement of Claim save for the fact that the accident was caused by the negligence of the 2 ^nd Defendant.

5. The 2 ^nd Defendant admits paragraph 5 of the Plaintiffs (sic) Statement of Claim and states that he remembers pleading guilty to leaving the scene of the accident because young men in that area that appeared to know the Plaintiff were gearing up to fight.

6. The 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendant (sic) denies paragraph 5(i) and states that on the contrary it was the 2 ^nd...