ADJEI vs. YEBOAH AND ANOTHER [1962]DLHC1323

Date	1962-06-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1323

DJABANOR J.

E.O. APPIAH FOR I. R. ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF.

J. OWUSU-YAW FOR DEFENDANT.

[1962]DLHC1323
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ADJEI <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">YEBOAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 495<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 25TH JUNE, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

E.O.
APPIAH FOR I. R. ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 2.0pt 0in">

DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s claim was against the first and the second
defendants jointly and severally for £G3,000 damages for personal injuries to
the plaintiff caused by the first defendant, a servant of second defendant on
the 6th July, 1960, while negligently driving the second defendant’s lorry No.
AN 4947 on the Kumasi-Tamale motor road.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first defendant in his statement of defence denied that he was
negligent and put the blame for the accident on the driver of the water
supplies lorry, No. WE 5255, charging the said driver with negligently and
suddenly coming across the road thus confronting him, the first defendant, head
on in circumstances in which no reasonable amount of care could have prevented
a collision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first duty of the plaintiff was therefore to prove that the
first defendant was negligent. This he set out to do, in my view successfully.
He said he was a passenger in the first defendant’s lorry from Kumasi to
Tamale. Before the accident the driver, the first defendant was in a hurry. He
was driving fast; he said he wanted to reach Tamale, off-load, and load back to
Kumasi the same day. He left Yeji in the morning and was hurrying along when
the accident occurred. He said he kept warning the driver that he was
travelling too fast. When they were nearing Jantulu, he saw an on-coming
vehicle. There was a bridge ahead of their vehicle and he saw that the
on-coming lorry stopped behind that bridge. But the first defendant did not
slacken his speed and drove into the stationary water supplies lorry. The first
defendant’s lorry was driven so fast that it pushed the water supplies lorry
backwards for a distance of about 20 yards. This water supplies lorry was 17
feet long, weighs 7 tons, and it was carrying a 17-foot rig also weighing 5
tons. This shows clearly that the water supplies lorry had stopped, for if it
were moving, the first defendant’s lorry could not have pushed it like that. It
shows also that the first defendant’s lorry was travelling very fast, otherwise
it could not have pushed a longer and heavier vehicle so far backwards. The
first defendant said he was travelling at the speed of 20 to 25 m.p.h. at the
time. Firstly, I think it is an excessive speed in the circumstances. Secondly,
if the defendant’s lorry was travelling at that speed it should have been able
to stop within the 20 yards. I am satisfied from the evidence that the water
supplies lorry had stopped. The testimony of the plaintiff and the water
supplies’ driver is worthy of credit, and I am satisfied that they spoke the
truth.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If the water supplies lorry stopped before entering the bridge,
which I believe, then prima facie the defendant’s driver was negligent, for
when a moving vehicle collides with a stationary one the presumption is that it
is the fault of the moving one: Mbadiwe v. Yaya and Anor.1(1) Randall v.
Tarrant.2(2) In my opinion the first defendant cannot even say that it was the
fault of the driver of vehicle No. WE 5255 for not giving him sufficient room
to pass, for if roads are in such a condition that a motor- car cannot safely
proceed at all it is the duty of the driver to stop. If the roads are in such a
condition that it is not safe to go at more than foot pace, his duty is to
proceed at foot pace. The first defendant’s defence was that he was driving at
a steady pace of 20 to 25 m.p.h. when just as he was passing through the bridge
the water supplies’ driver suddenly drove the vehicle across the road and from
a distance of 15 to 18 yards he was unable to avoid the accident. I don’t think
this story can be true. From the force against the water supplies lorry, there
is no doubt that it had stopped and also that the defendant’s lorry was
travelling very fast. Certainly much faster than the 20 to 25 m.p.h. he
admitted. I think he failed in his duty to exercise care when he was reaching
the narrow bridge. He certainly ought to have slowed down, even stopped, when
he was approaching the bridge and when he saw that there was another vehicle
also approaching the bridge from the other side. I am satisfied that the
collision was the fault of the second defendant’s driver and I adjudge him
negligent and condemn him to pay damages to the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>