ATSYOR vs. DONKOR AND ANOTHER [1979]DLHC1041

Date	1979-05-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1041

COUSSEY J.

ADZOE FOR DR. OBED ASAMOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MISS ASARE KORANG STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1979]DLHC1041
																																						<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" >ATSYOR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DONKOR AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[1980] GLR 273<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:
1 MAY 1979<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">

ADZOE FOR DR. OBED ASAMOAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

MISS ASARE KORANG, STATE ATTORNEY, FOR THE
DEFENDANT.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT COUSSEY J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff brings this action for damages as successor to and administrator of
the estate of Francis Koku Edjah, deceased.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 23
February 1974, the first defendant who was employed by the second defendant
whilst driving vehicle No. GF 6367 on the Avenui-Wegbe motor road skidded off
the road and somersaulted. Francis Koku Edjah who was a passenger on the
vehicle sustained injuries from the accident and died on the same day. He was
aged 24 years and was a student of St. Paul’s Secondary School, Denu.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s case is presented under two heads: that is, the first defendant was
negligent and the accident was entirely due to his negligence. Alternatively,
he was relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff’s first witness Emmanuel Tsitsiku who is now a student at the
Institute of Professional Studies at Legon, said on the day of the accident, he
was a student at the St. Paul’s Secondary School, Denu, and they were
travelling to Wli Water Falls together with other students. The deceased,
Francis Koku Edjah, was one of the students on the vehicle. They were
travelling on the school’s vehicle driven by Joseph Donkor, the school’s
driver. After they passed Anyarawase going towards Wegba, they were involved in
an accident. There were curves in the road. It was about 7.30 a.m. and
visibility was clear. The driver of their vehicle was travelling very fast. He
suddenly felt the truck had veered to one side, and they went off the road.
This happened in a curve. He said, there was no on-coming traffic at the time. The
vehicle broke into two and was a total wreck. Francis Koku Edjah was in
apparent good health at the time they left Denu. He died as a result of the
accident. The defence could not call their only witness because they could not
trace him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
counsel for the plaintiff’s address filed, he has contended that the evidence
of the plaintiff’s witness that the first defendant was driving fast in a curve
was not rebutted; and in the absence of any explanation as to the cause of the
accident, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must apply, and referred to the
case of Nelson v. Klutse, Court of Appeal (full bench), 8 September 1969,
unreported; digested in (1969) C.C. 142. Further the first defendant had
pleaded guilty to the charges of careless driving and negligently causing harm.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the defendants, Miss Asare Korang, argued that the only evidence in the
case was the police report, exhibit A, which said that in a sharp curve, the
vehicle driven by the first defendant, skidded off the road and somersaulted on
its nearside and thought this was not enough to hold the defendants liable.<o:p></o:p>It has
been held that a skidding vehicle is not in law a nuisance, nor is the skidding
in itself any evidence of negligence on the part of the driver: see Wing v.
London General Omnibus Co. [1909] 2 K.B. 652, C.A.; Parker v. London General
Omnibus Co., Ltd. (1909) 101 L.T. 623, C.A. But the decided cases on the point
suggest that it is incumbent on the driver to use additional care proportioned
to the greater risk, both with regard to his driving and also to the condition
of his tyres. Thus in Isaac Walton &amp; Co. v. Vanguard Motorbus Co., Ltd.
(1908) 25 T.L.R. 13, D.C. it was held that if a vehicle driven, in the roadway,
collides with a fixed object or a pedestrian on the footpath, the mere fact of
the accident is evidence of negligence against the driver, even if it is proved
that his vehicle skidded on to the footpath.<o:p></o:p>