TAKYI vs. DUA AND ANOTHER [1966]DLHC1764

Date	1966-03-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLHC1764

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

P. D. ANIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

T. K. ABOAGYE FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1966]DLHC1764
																																						<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" >TAKYI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DUA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 254<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
22 MARCH 1966.<o:p></o:p>

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

P. D. ANIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

T. K. ABOAGYE 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 windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>This is a
running down action. By his writ of summons the plaintiff claims as against the
defendants jointly and severally £G3,574 16s. damages for personal injuries,
£G74 16s. of this represents special damages and £G3,500 is claimed as general
damages. The plaintiff is an infant secondary school boy of eighteen years,
attending the Koforidua Secondary School, and sues by his next friend and
father Kwame Takyi.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff ‘s case as appearing in his pleadings is that on 2 April 1965 at
about 8.30 p.m. he was walking towards New Drobo along the grass verge
bordering the off-side portion of the Japekrom and New Drobo road, when he was
struck from behind by a taxicab No. AT 2812 driven by the second defendant who
was travelling in the same direction along the same road towards New Drobo. The
taxicab is owned by the first defendant, and was driven by the second defendant
in the course of his employment as the driver and servant of the first
defendant. It is the plaintiff’s case that the accident occurred as a result of
the defendant’s negligence. The particulars of negligence given are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) Failing
to keep a proper look out for the plaintiff, a pedestrian lawfully using the
road;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)
driving on the wrong side of the road, i.e. failing to drive on the on-side
portion of the said road and colliding with the plaintiff who was then walking
on the grass verge bordering the off-side of the road; and<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) Failing
to slow down and steer clear of the plaintiff pedestrian.<o:p></o:p>In the
alternative, the plaintiff relies on and pleads the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
In the consequence of the second defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff
sustained serious injuries to his head and leg.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants, by their defence admit that the plaintiff was hit by taxicab No. AT
2812, but deny that the second defendant was in the employ of the first
defendant. They contend that the accident occurred because the second defendant
who was in charge of the taxi swerved to the off-side to avoid knocking down a
cyclist who suddenly crossed the road in front of the said vehicle. It was
during this process that the defendant was knocked down.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There was
not much denial during the trial that the accident occurred as a result of the
negligence of the second defendant. The taxicab he was driving was off the road
on the right hand side of the road, while he should, if he had been driving
carefully, have been on the left hand side or have given a reasonable
explanation as to why he was on the right hand side. The second defendant did
not give evidence at all. The presence of a cyclist was denied by the
plaintiff. The police officer who came to the scene shortly after the accident
was not cross-examined at all. There was therefore no suggestion to him that
there was a cyclist around. Moreover when the second defendant was charged
before the district court at Berekum on 3 May 1965 on two counts of careless
driving and negligently causing harm to the plaintiff he admitted his
negligence by pleading guilty to the charges. There has been no explanation why
he pleaded guilty. I do not think there is any alternative open to me other
than to hold that on the evidence it is abundantly clear that the accident
occurred as a result of the negligence of the second defendant. There is
evidence which is unchallenged that the second defendant was driving in the
course of his duty as a taxi driver, and as a servant of the first defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></</main>