YIRENKYI vs. TARZAN INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT [1962]DLHC1760

Date	1962-02-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1760

OLLENNU J.

G. R. MCV. FRANCOIS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

A. W. ACQUAAH FOR E. D. KOM FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1760
																																						<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:#548DD4">YIRENKYI <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:#548DD4">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:#548DD4">TARZAN INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 75<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"> 15TH FEBRUARY, 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">

G.
R. MCV. FRANCOIS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

A.
W. ACQUAAH FOR E. D. KOM FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
OLLENNU J.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff claims £G6,000 against the defendants as damages he
suffered in consequence of the negligence of a servant of the defendants, in
driving a vehicle of the defendants into the plaintiff’s store. The accident
took place at about midnight of the 13th to 14th March, 1961. No one was about
at the time, except the driver of the defendants’ vehicle. The plaintiff came
to the store the next morning and found the vehicle standing in the ruins of
the store.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Vehicles do not normally run off the road into buildings; they
would only do so in consequence of negligence on the part of the driver, or as
a result of inevitable accident. In this case the cause of the accident is
peculiarly within the knowledge of one person and one person only, namely, the
driver of the defendants. That being so the principle of res ipsa loquitur
applies and the presumption is that the accident was caused by negligence of
the defendants’ driver. The onus is upon the defendants to rebut that
presumption by proving facts which are inconsistent with their liability:
Robert Ude v. Bonjut,1(1) Mbadiwe v. Yaya and Anor.2(2)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The defendants’ driver’s version is that the accident was caused
by the top leaf of his front near-side springs breaking suddenly. If that fact
had been proved it would have been a good defence for then the matter would be
inevitable accident. But we have just the bare words of the driver for it. The
vehicle was examined by a testing officer soon after the accident. If the
allegation of the defence is true the testing officer would have seen the
broken leaf and would have been called to give evidence. I do not believe the
evidence of the driver, D.W. 1. I am satisfied that the accident was caused by
the negligence of the defendants’ driver.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the plaintiff claimed special damages of £G6,000 and gave
particulars of it as follows: (1) value of a variety of goods destroyed, £G925;
(2) cash in store lost, £G250; (3) goodwill lost, £G1,000; (4) loss of profits
for one year, £G3,825.<o:p></o:p>As to the value of goods destroyed the plaintiff simply put in an
inventory of goods. This was admitted for what it was worth and marked exhibit
A. His storekeeper P.W.1 gave evidence that the said inventory was taken by him
jointly with the plaintiff. The inventory is not signed. There is evidence that
police came on the scene immediately after the accident happened or shortly
after it had occurred and remained there for a long time, for over a day. How
useful would the evidence of the police have been on this question! No reliance
whatsoever can be placed upon that list exhibit A.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a claim for damages based upon injury or damage to chattels the
damages which the owner is entitled to recover are the difference, if any,
between the value of the chattel before it was damaged and its value after
repair; and if damaged beyond repair, then its market value at date of its
destruction: see Hall Ltd. v. Barclay3(3) and Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol.,
II (3rd ed.) page 263, para. 437. In addition he may recover in respect of such
loss or damage which is the direct result of the negligence. But any loss or
damage which is neither the natural and probable result of the act or omission
complained of would be too remote: see Halsbury op. cit., page 277, para. 458,
and Clark &amp; Lindsell on Tort (11th ed.), page 183, para. 282. Merely
speculative profits cannot be recovered: The Notting Hill4(4) ; Clerk &amp;
Lindsell op. cit. page 172, para. 268.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>