NYAME vs. TARZAN TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER [1973]DLCA2333

Date	1973-07-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2333

AZU CRABBE J.S.C.

LASSEY JA

ARCHER J.A.

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANT.

A. K. MMIEH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2333
																																						<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" >NYAME <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>TARZAN TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1973]
1 GLR 8<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
24 JULY 1972.<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">

J. B. QUASHIE-IDUN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

A. K. MMIEH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

AZU CRABBE J.S.C., LASSEY AND ARCHER
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>On 13
August 1964, at a place between Nkawkaw and Awendadze Village, on the
Nkawkaw-Kumasi road, a vehicle No. AG 5744, owned by the second defendant,
collided with a Bedford truck No. AG 8721, owned by the first
defendant-company. The plaintiff, who was a fare-paying passenger on the former
vehicle, sustained personal injuries as a result of the collision. In an action
before Mensa Boison J. in the High Court, Kumasi, the plaintiff claimed damages
from the owners of the two vehicles, alleging negligence on the part of their
drivers. In his judgment following the trial Mensa Boison J. said:<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">“In the
result I am satisfied that the accident was wholly caused by the negligence of
the first defendant by driving into the path of the second defendant’s bus and
by lack of proper control failed to avoid colliding with the second defendant’s
vehicle. I do not find any negligence in the driver of bus No. AG 5744.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
defendant has now appealed to this court, and the argument in support of the
appeal is based solely on the ground that the judgment cannot be supported,
having regard to the evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
court is loth to disturb a finding of fact by a trial judge who has had the
advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, “their candour or their
partisanship, and all the incidental elements so difficult to describe which
make up the atmosphere of an actual trial,” per Lord Macmillan in Watt (or
Thomas) v. Thomas [1947] A.C. 484 at pp. 490-491, H.L. But it is far more ready
to reverse his decision in a case which depends on inferences from admitted or
undisputed facts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Negligence
is a question of fact, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the
defendant’s negligence was the cause of the accident. The plaintiff must adduce
evidence from which the inference can be drawn that the negligence of the
defendant led to the accident, and the defendant can only be held liable if he
is shown on the balance of probabilities to have caused damage to the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the drivers of the two defendants were in control of vehicles which
collided in circumstances which must have been due to the negligence of the
driver of the first defendant or the second defendant. The basic rule is that
the plaintiff must prove his case on the balance of probabilities, and if the
inference is that only one of the drivers had been negligent, and it is
impossible to say which, then the plaintiff would be held to have failed,
unless the two defendants had refused to give evidence, in which case an
adverse inference against them could be drawn. In Baker v. Market Harborogh
Industrial Co-operative Society, Ltd. [1953] 1 W.L.R. 1472, C.A. Somervell L.J.
stated the rule in its practical form at p. 1475:<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">“It is,
of course, possible that a plaintiff injured by negligence may fail because he
is unable to establish whether the negligence was ‘A’s’ or ‘B’s’. If his
difficulties are due to any failure of ‘A’ or ‘B’ or both to call available
evidence, adverse inferences may be drawn. Here all available evidence was
called, and the question, as it seems to me, is one of probable inf</main>