Taylor v Solomon'S Supercentre (Nassau) Ltd and AML Food (Nassau) Ltd (Formerly ABACO Markets Ltd)

• Jurisdiction: Bahamas
• Judge: Fraser, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 February 2016
• Court: Supreme Court (Bahamas)
• Docket Number: 2011/CLE/gen/00572
• Date: 10 February 2016

Supreme Court

Fraser, J.

2011/CLE/gen/00572

Taylor

and

Solomon'S Supercentre (Nassau) Ltd. and AML Food (NASSAU) Ltd. (Formerly ABACO Markets Ltd.)

Appearances:

Mrs. Clarita Lockhart for the plaintiff

Mrs. Nadia Wright & Mrs. Eugenia Butler for the defendants

Civil practice and procedure - Personal injury — Admission of liability by defendant — Whether judgment should be entered into based on admission of liability pursuant to Order 27 Rule 3, RSC — Whether defendant should be permitted to call medical expert having regard to the fact that his statement had only been served on the plaintiff the day before the hearing — Judgment entered into for plaintiff on liability — Defendant permitted to call witness in the interest of justice.

Fraser, J.

1 On the last hearing of this matter, two issues arose for consideration by this Court and I reserved by ruling with respect thereto. I now rule on those two issues.

FIRST ISSUE

2 Counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection based on the admission by the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to Order 27, Rule 3, Rules of the Supreme Court and asked the Court to enter judgment in this matter.

SECOND ISSUE

3 Whether the defendant should be allowed to call the medical expert Dr. Edwin Demeritte having regard to the fact that his statement had only been served on the plaintiff the day prior to the hearing.

4 Before addressing the issues the facts briefly are that on the 24th day of May 2008, the plaintiff and the minor child were shopping in a store owned by the first defendant and operated by the second defendant when the minor child slipped and fell. A writ of summons was filed by the plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries, loss and damages caused by the negligence of the first defendant. The defendants filed a defence in this matter on October 2nd 2014 and for the purposes of this application I will produce some in its entirety.

• “1. It is admitted that on the 24th of May 2008 the plaintiff slipped and fell on her buttocks in the store of the defendant. Also, for the purposes of this action only, the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd defendants herein admit liability to compensate the plaintiff for the personal injury, loss and damages sustained directly as a result of the slip and fall accident.

• 2. As to paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim the 1st and 2nd defendant state that the alleged injuries, loss and damages pleaded are denied. Furthermore, the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

• 3. Save as expressly admitted herein the and 2nd defendants deny each and every allegation in the Statement of Claim as if the same were specifically set out traversed herein seriatim.”

5 Let me say that based upon the affidavit filed by Sherman Bethell on behalf of the plaintiff, there appears to have been many mis-steps in this matter since the filing of the Writ. I intend to deal only with the two issues which are before me.

6 Counsel for the defendant has submitted that in relation to the first issue raised that we are beyond the point of an Order 27 application and a summary judgment application. On May 19th 2015, the Court heard counsel for the plaintiff on the summons filed September 2014 for summary judgment. On a reading of the transcript no specific mention was made of Order 27. It was an application for summary judgment. The transcript reads as follows:

Court: “So, what you are doing Ms. Lockhart is you are asking the Court to consider your application for summary judgment today?”

Ms. Lockhart: “Yes, My Lady, in light of paragraph 1 of the defence.”

7 The Court did not accede to the application for summary judgment for reasons stated at that time. At the second hearing of the matter on November 26th 2015, counsel for the plaintiff...