Magana v Espat

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Rajasingham, J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1980
• Docket Number: Action No. 364 of 1980
• Date: 01 January 1980

Supreme Court

Rajasingham, J.

Action No. 364 of 1980

Magana

and

Espat

Mr. Dujon, for plaintiff

Mr. D. Courtenay, for defendant.

Damages - Negligence — Traffic accident — Damages to vehicle.

Rajasingham, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim is for damages arising from an accident, between his pick-up and a pick-up belonging to the defendant, on the 27th of November, 1979. The defendant, while admitting the collision, asserts that the collision was entirely due to the negligent driving of the plaintiff.

2 The version of the accident given by the two parties only agree on the identity of the vehicles and their respective drivers and on the damage caused to the vehicles; they differ entirely on how the accident itself occurred.

3 The plaintiff gave evidence and stated that at about 9:30 a.m. that morning he was approaching Belmopan, along the main road into Belmopan called Constitution Drive, when the defendant drove out of a “picado” or dirt road on to this main road and ran into the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff says he himself was pulling up with the intention of taking the second entrance into the Marsden Gas Station because he had seen friends at the gas station. He says he saw the defendant's pick-up on the dirt road and heard someone call out something which made the defendant turn and look back as his vehicle continued to move forwards. It is the plaintiff's contention that it was this lack of attention that caused the defendant to run into the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff called two teachers, Christino Dominguez and Diana Shields as his witnesses. The plaintiff and his witnesses were all from Orange Walk and had journeyed to Belmopan to see the Premier. They were thus comparative strangers to Belmopan. The evidence of Christino Dominguez and Diana Shields was substantially the same as that given by the plaintiff. There were some discrepancies in their evidence such as which entrance of the gas station their vehicle was at when the plaintiff passed. I am of the opinion that these apparent contradictions arise from their attempts to describe in words a scene with which they are not familiar and which they were trying to recall three years later. I was particularly impressed with the evidence of Diana Shields. She was very certain of what she said and at pains to avoid any misunderstanding. She described in graphic detail the exchange of words that took place immediately after the incident. She said she told the defendant right away that he was at fault, when the defendant sought to accuse the plaintiff. She said she had recognized Magaña's vehicle and was laughing at him because he was late and had missed “the meeting” — when the accident occurred. She says she saw the defendant look back as he continued to drive out into the main road and hit the plaintiff. Dominguez says he was waiting to drive out of the gas station when the accident occurred. He said he was coming out of the entrance furthest from Belmopan. Shields said they were waiting to drive out of the entrance nearest to Belmopan. There appears to have been some misunderstanding on the part of Dominguez, perhaps of the questions, because he goes on to say that the plaintiff had not yet passed him when the accident occurred and that “the road Espat came out of was slightly to the left of me as I waited at the gas station”. The only dirt road that could be on his left as he came out of the gas station is the access road into the construction site and that could only be on his left if he was coming out of the entrance nearest to Belmopan — as Shields said he was. The other side-road, Forest Drive, could never be on his left no matter which entrance of the gas station he came out of. Thus an apparent contradiction clearly appears to be the result of a misunderstanding on his part.

4 I might deal here in passing with a rather curious line of defence to which the defendant clung tenaciously even in his evidence. The plaintiff was cross-examined on the basis that the only side-road was Forest Drive and that no such access road as was mentioned by the plaintiff had ever existed. The plaintiff was thus required to call a witness, Oliver Gillett, to prove that in November 1979, there had indeed been a road giving access to what was then the construction site for the new Police Training School. Subsequently in his own evidence, given...