Levine v Puerto

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Alcantara, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 October 1981
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 6 of 1980
• Date: 02 October 1981

Supreme Court

Alcantara, J.

Appeal No. 6 of 1980

Levine

and

Puerto

Mr. Michael Young, for the Appellant.

Mr. G. C. Gandhi, for the Respondent.

Negligence - Offences of negligently and unlawfully causing grievous harm through the negligent use of a motor vehicle and driving motor vehicle without due care and attention — Section 88 of the Criminal Code and Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act — Appeal against conviction — What constitutes driving without due care and attention — Definition of “negligence”.

Alcantara, J.

1 This is an appeal from the Inferior Court for the Stann Creek Judicial District. The appellant was convicted and fined for two offences on the 12th June, 1980 by the learned magistrate. The particulars of the offences were:

For that the said Joshua Levine on the 25th day of March, 1980 on the Southern Highway between Mile 13 and 14 in the Stann Creek Judicial District negligently and unlawfully caused grievous harm to John Zabaneh through the negligent use of motor vehicle namely pickup No. C-7646 contrary to section 88 of the Criminal Code, Chapter 21 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition, 1958.

For that the said Joshua Levine on the 25th day of March, 1980 on the Southern road between Mile 13 and 14 in the Stann Creek Judicial District you drove motor vehicle namely pickup No. C-7646 on the said road without due care and attention contrary to section 76 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Ordinance, Chapter 62 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition, 1958.

2 A fine of $75 for the first offence and a fine of $100 for the second offence. Each carried a term of imprisonment in default of payment.

3 From the said convictions the appellant has appealed to this court and his grounds of appeal in respect of both convictions are the same:

1

The decision was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence. 2. The decision was erroneous in point of law. 3. The decision was based on a wrong principle or was such that the Inferior Court viewing the circumstances reasonably could not properly have so decided.

4 The brief facts of the case are that on the date in question, the 25th March, 1980, the appellant was driving his pick-up truck C-7646 along the Southern Highway in a northerly direction. It was early morning and the road was very dusty. He was travelling at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. As he was approaching a cut-off road on his left-hand side he looked into, “my rear view and saw a whole pile of dust.” He then put his left trafficator and proceeded to turn into the cut-off road. A collision took place.

5 Unknown to him one Zabaneh had been travelling behind him at a higher speed in another pick-up C-9523. Zabaneh decided to overtake the Appellant on his left-hand side. He blew his horn a number of times and proceeded to overtake just as the Appellant was turning to his left. The collision then took place. Both vehicles were damaged, and Zabaneh was injured.

6 Counsel for the appellant has argued that the accident or collision was the fault of Zabaneh and not that of the appellant. Zabaneh was driving fast. It was a dusty road and he decided to overtake at an intersection of which he was aware. The appellant took all the necessary precautions. Further, it was Zabaneh who was guilty of careless driving and that it was through Zabaneh's own negligence that he suffered grievous harm. Finally, that the magistrate misdirected himself when he said in his judgment - “Finding the defendant guilty on the charge of negligent grievous harm was consequential on his conviction on the charge of driving without due care and attention.”

7 Counsel has referred me to Black's Law Dictionary, 1979, and to the relevant Rules of the Road and to Section 8 of the Criminal Code, this latter in relation to the second charge.

8 Counsel for the respondent has directed my attention to the test laid down by Lord Goddard in Simpson v Peat (1952) 2 Q.B. 24, and to the rules contained in Volume 2 of Subsidiary Laws of Belize, particularly Rules 114(l)(b), 114(2)(b), 114(3) and 115. In addition, he has referred me to Baxter 41 C.A.R. 134, Ball Loughlin 50 C.A.R. 266. All the above authorities in relation to the charge of careless driving.

9 With particular reference to the second charge, that of causing grievous harm by negligence, counsel drew my attention to the Criminal Code, Sections 88, 91, 8 and 7 and to the cases of Willard Bonner v Queen C.A. 7 of 1979 and Sidney Stubbs 8 C.A.R. 238.

10 I will...