Wagner v Cocom

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Supreme Court (Belize)
• Judge: Moe, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 July 1981
• Docket Number: No. 76 of 1977
• Date: 23 July 1981

Supreme Court

Moe, J.

No. 76 of 1977

Wagner

and

Cocom

Mr. Denys Barrow for the plaintiff

Mr. Hubert Elrington for the defendant

Damages - Negligence — Traffic accident — Damage to plaintiff's vehicle — Measure of damages — Plaintiff awarded the difference in pre-accident and post accident market value.

Moe, J.

1 The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant for the loss she incurred as a result of damage to her motor car which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed for damages for loss he incurred as a result of damage to his car which he alleged was caused by the negligence of the agent of the plaintiff.

2 A collision occurred at the junction of Amara Avenue and Allenby Street between a vehicle driven by the agent of the plaintiff along Amara Avenue a major road and a vehicle driven by the defendant along Allenby Street a minor road. There was great divergence in the accounts given by the drivers of the vehicles as to how the collision took place.

3 I gave weight to the evidence of policeman Baeza and Mr Miguel Schultz and found that after the impact the vehicles were found at the junction of the roads Amara Avenue and Allenby Street. The plaintiff's car was facing a southerly direction (i.e. the direction in which it was travelling), was more to the left hand side of Amara Avenue as one faces south with its front turned slightly to its left. The defendant's car was facing an easterly direction (i.e. the direction in which it was travelling) with a part of it on Allenby Street and a part on Amara Avenue.

4 The evidence of the position of the vehicles was consistent with the account given by the driver of the plaintiff's car as to how the collision occurred. That is that he was driving in the middle of Amara Avenue, that he braked, the vehicle skidded, he tried to cut away and the front fender of the vehicle he was driving collided with the defendant's vehicle, which skidded along with the plaintiff's vehicle and the two vehicles stopped.

5 I found the defendant's account unreliable and difficult to accept. It was put before the Court by cross-examination that the plaintiff's driver was travelling at fifty miles per hour; that the defendant had stopped at the junction of the two roads; that the defendant saw the plaintiff's car coming (i.e. at 50 mph) and crossed the junction.

6 While it was difficult to accept this as what occurred the...