Amadu Wurie v Edward W. Shomefun & Another (CIV APP 8 of 1981) [1983] SLSC 24 (29 December 1983)

ATW: SUPREME COURT oF srenA Leow conan ie Hon. Wr. duties £, Livesey Luke, O13. = Presiding The Hon, Mr, Justice 0,B.R, Tejan, J = 5.5.0, Tie Mon, Hos.Justice A.V.A, Amunor-Renner — 9.8.0, Bie Hon, Hes Justice

8. Becotes Davies _ 9.8.0, Te Mon, He Sustice PA, snort = a8 o1¥. APP. Wo, 6/8) Bervenisoupy wate = avpetiaxe AND a TOWARD ILGOM SHOMEPUN — 187 RESFoNDeNT FODAY BaNGURA = 280 Respoument Mrs Geevas ett and with min ts. Tayor-tamre ee Appeltant Mer THe Swytne GC, and with nin Nive tauren Wettestey-co1e for Respondent cee EENED THIS. 290 DAY OF DESHIMER, 965 SEL UcSsGst- The events Leading to this epneat can yg stated brseriys- Bee SHOE ssoording to she appettant started on tne gem aay Of February, 1975 von the appettant, a nove, Sovrentice, oardea farts Yeo Wis 896T driven by the 2nd respondent ant orien by the ist Feevondent 0 convey him to ¥aterieo viliaee, re sppeniant ir Be my fs tom of tronty conse at the fare for the meee Bit tesond respondent, arriving at tonto vitiage stersee een ven snd Se0k s0e passengers. the second respondent whee semen Bs Soorney, tut because of the numer of passengers ween sn Seréved af Mana Beach, ho asked the appeiiant to sesine vy roading is foods of 86 passengers on the carrier of the ven Spprtiant @bLigingny 444 40, and che second respondene tora hin te SAF on the Toke aide of the vantoio, the steoming wheel teumy vg Shs other side, The second respondent continued the Jounee arn F ‘hen Be Grove tovarde a elope tn Jusu Tow, the vahidie eoveiorcs opted and 0" into © gallop. ‘Te result vas, that the amersne fell off the vehicle end was unabio to got uP. The attention of Ol Se rs

‘he second defendant vas oniied, and on reversing the vehicle, Fede over tho log uf the appellant who fainted and gained Senectousness at the Connaught Hospital where he vas treated by the Sentor Specialist Surgeon Mr, Ulric Jones and later by Sento Spectaiiet Surgecn Mr. Abu Kargbo, Vien the appeliant vas “teoharged from tho hospital he vent to Yaterioo Police Station Se make a stateciont in respect of the accident, but te his disma: Be wae told thet ho had already made a statement and the matter had Been disposed of in the Magistrate Court,

t Being divsatiefied with the manner in which the matter vue Rendled, the appetiant on the 31st day of January 1977, institute Proeedings ngainst the tot and 2ad respondents, claimed damages for negligence and als> special damages,

‘Te ronpondents denied nogitgence on the part of the 2na Seepondent, dented that the 2nd reepondent reversed, and contende. Shat 4£ there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent (vmtoh vas categorically denied) tho appoliant contributed te the negligence,

‘The cage was hoard by Williams J. and the firet vitness for the appellant vas Mr, Ulric Jones, This witness testiried that or ‘he 78h February 1976, he oxcined the appellant and he found the following injursnns—

1+ He hed sustained a crush injury to the Fight lover limb,

2. Swelling on his ieft ankie. 3+ Multiple bruises and abrasions of the Lert leg. 4, Severo atrain of his back,

5. Shock,

‘The appellant uns aduttted in hespital on the same day, and After the witness heel rcucved 4 Jot of dead tissues and cleaned She wound, he had grave doubt whether the 1iab would be saved and on the 1th day of February, 1976, he had to perform an electric arputations Following this the appellant had general treatment and wae Later transferred to Murrey Town Hospital on the 9th day of March, 1976 for monsuronent ant ssennemont for an artificial limb,

Between the 7th day of February, 1976 and 14th day of February 1976, the appeliant was 411, and the witness had erent doubts co fe whether the appellant had full povers of memory, consctousnars and avareness, Tie appellant had impaired oonsotousness up to tn 2hth day of Pobr: "ry, 1976, indicating that, he had hada toxic { Staneee, Tie necessitated the adnintetration of pre-aedfoation q Gruae on the 12th day of Fgbruary, 1976, The vitnese vas sonfide ‘that between the 12th day of February 1976 and 14th February 1976 snd am Particular on the 13th day of Pebruary 1976; the appellant wee not im any condition to undergo any high task of menory/ The witnee put in evidence exnibit “A* for vation he had tecetved, te sam 0f 1020.00 and that ne recommended the use of artificial aime ; She cost of which ranged at the tine from 10800.00 td 162,000,00 for each limb, According to the witness, the amputation of the appellants Limb would affect his activities and he veuld contious fe surfer pain on the knoe from time to time, and that even vive sm artificial Liab, tho appeliant would not be able to drive 7 vehicle unless 4¢ 19 © specially adjusted venioie, q Dr. Abu Bakarr Kargbo Senior Surgeon Specialist attached to 3 the Connaught Hospital examined the appellant on the 7th day ot . September 1976 and found that the ppeliant had permanently lost Mf Tight 106 due to amputation fotioving a crushed injury, ‘tne Sppelient complained of intermittent pain in his iusbo-secral mane (SB tise restrsoted novenent on that part of nis spinal cote, The soveldant was tender on the sodial aspact of nis left antie, {MMM contained of pain in nie Joint, tis evidence corrovers ce to © large extont the evidence of Hr, Ulric Jones. ite admitece tmas Ne vas paid the sun of L0100,00 and he then put ene reatavan sesosement of the appellant disabilities at 70K, E The appellant having told the Court how the accident happened, 2 “M crots-examined on behalf of the respondents, te dented twee Grit te evrrention working for tne second respondent on the aay J swentton, Moonta that he paid tr, Kargho the sum of Le100.00

ey

and Mes Jones the sum of Leh0,00 but Hr. Jones said that the amount Paid to him was the sum of 1020.00 for vaich he Produced Feseipts While he vas in the hospital, he bought food to the to amount ef 1¢100,00, and that he spent more than 1050.00 while he wae Sttending hospital, He anid that he did not know one Exu anc ene Mr. Jalon, Ne denied chat while tho van was tn motion he climbed to ite Foot in order to stoni fish, ‘Te It respondent neither gave evidence nor called any \ witness, but the second respondent gave evidence and called witnesses, His evidence was that on the 7th February, 1976 he Greve van WR. 8967 and that it was one James Bornie who hired him fe rive the van, When the van vas handed to him, one Eku and the Sppediant were the apprentices, we recalled the 7th February 197¢ when te von was involved tn an accident at Juma Town while he vas Proceeding from Hama Beach, There vere hiiis and Pot holes on the Feeds He closed tho van after his apprentices had ontered it as ‘his was his usual custom, While he vas driving, Eku stopped him BY shouting "one bell". He stopped after travelling « short GAstance and alighted. Ho then sav the appellant dying on the roa With one of the baskets, He did not imow vhat had happened vhen ne heard the call for "ono bell" and he did not Feverse the van. In sneer to Mr. Betts, learned Counsel who appoared for appellant at she trial, he said that ho made a statement to the Police a day * after the accident. He denied that he told the Police that ne Joaded seven large baskets of fish on the carrier. He said that BKu was not called Abu and he dented thet he told the Police that A£ was his apprentice maned Abu vho otgnaiied to him that the Appellant had falien off tho van, Mo denied that he was charged with the offence of carrying passengers at the entrance and also fer carrying passengers without proper aitting ‘accommodation, *uundayo Taylor gave evidence on behalf of the respondents, ‘This witness deposed that ho knew the 2nd Fespondent and the sppeliant. About two years previously, « Mazda Van driven by the 2nd respondent was involved in an accident at Jum, Town, re SF

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.