Amadu Wurie v Edward W Shomefun,Foday Bangura (8 of 1981) [1983] SLSC 12 (29 December 1983)

lobo

TX THE SUPREME COURT oF SLERRA LEONE aa ‘CORAM: ; The Hon, Mr. Justice By Livesey Lake, O.J, = Presiding The Hon, Mr. Justice 0,B,R, Tejan, J = 58.0, ~ 7 The Hon, Mcs,Justice A.V,A, Awunor-Renner — J6S.C, To Hon. He. Justice 8, Beccles Davies - 3.8.0, The Hon, Mr, Justice P,A, Short = TA ; ane, aus wort = appetaaar ; Be ’ POVARD WILSON suioNerUN - 197 RDSpoNDeWT Poa BaNoUA = 2xp neeromnewr f Mey Onrvas atts and vith hin Mr, Tayior-Xamara for Appellant Mey Jull, Suythe G0, and with hin Kiss Patrice Yelleniey-Cole fer Reopondans JUDGMENT pSLIVERED THIS_297H DAY oF DECEMBER, 1962 MBIA, J.8.0.1- The evente testing to thie appeal can be stated betrays Te story according to the appellant started on the 7th day of February, 1976 when the appoliant, a moter apprentice, boarded 4 Mauda Van Wi, 8967 driven by tho 2nd respondent and owed by the tet respondent to convey him to vateriee vitiege, ‘The appetiant 1 wae to pay the sum of twenty cents as the fare for the journey. | Te second respondent, arriving at Tonbo village stopped the ven : tnd took some passengers, ‘Tho second respondent then continued his Journey, but Docause of the number of passengers vhew he rrived at Yana Beach, he asked the appoltant to assist in Loading the goods of tho passengers on the earrier of the van, The appellant obligingly did so, and the second respondent oid nim ¥e ‘ *At on the right side of the vehicle, the etocming wheel veing on . the other side, The second respondent continued the journey and ; speed and got into a gallop. ‘The reavit was, that the appellant j fell off the vubicle and was unah¥s to get up. The attention of i 10% Hlth! SER TE

(ot

the second defendant vas called, and on reversing the ventele, * Fede over the leg vf the appellant who fainted and gained * consciousness at the Connaught Hospital where he was treated by the Sontor Speotaiist Surgeon Mr. Ulric Jones and later by Senior ae Specialist Surgecn Mr. Abu Kargbo. When the appellant was discharged from the hospital he vent to Waterloo Police Station to make a statenent in respect of the accident, but to his dismay he was told thet ho had already made a statement and the matter had boon disposed of in the Magistrate Court, Being dirsatisfied vith the manner in which the matter vas handled, the appellant on the 31st day of January 1977, instituted Proceedings against the tot and 2nd respondents, elaimed damages i for negligence and also special damages. : The ronpondents denied negligence on the part of the and : Fespondent, denied that the 2nd respondent reversed, and contended that Af thore was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent (mien vas categoricatty denied) the appeliant contributed to the negligence. Tho case was hoard by Willians J, and the firet witness for the appoilant vas Mr, Virie Jones, Tate witness testified that on ] the 7m Fosruary 1976, ne examined tho eppeiient and he found the following injurise:~ 1, He hed sustained @ orush injury to the | right lover ind, F !

2. Swelling on his left ankle, 3+ Mutsipte bruises and abrasions of the Left leg. A, Severe strain of nis back.

5. Shook, Te appellant vas adattted in hespital on the same day, and Aftor the witness bed roucved 10% of dead tissues and cleaned * the wound, he had grave doubt whether the limb would be saved and ; on the 1th day of February, 1976, he had to perform an electro 2 and vas later transferred to Murray Tovm Hospital on the 9th day Of March, 1976 for mosavcanont ant sseonsmont for an artificial Umb, mer MENS ST A I

| (bd

| Between the 7th day of February, 1976 and 14th day of February’

° 4 1976, the appellant was i11, and the witness had great doubts as, | to whether the appellant had full powers of momory, consciousness | and awareness, Tae appellant had impaired consciousness up to the

~ 24th day of Fobronry, 1976, indicating that, he had had a doxte illness, This necessitated the administration of pro~medication drugs on the 12th day of February, 1976, The witness vas confiden that between the 12th day of February 1976 and 14th February 1976, and in particular on the 13th day of February 1976; the appellant was not in any condition to undergo any high task of memory/ The witness put in evidence exhibit "A" for which he had tecetvedl the ; sum of 1020.00 and that he reconmended tho use of artiticial Limbs i the cost of which ranged at the time from Le800.00 td Le2,000,00 for each limb, According to the witness, the amputation of the appellant's limb vould affect his activities and he vould centisiue to suffer pain on the knoe from time to time, and that even with an artificial 1imb, tho appellant would not be able to drive a Vehicle unless it 19 a epectally adjusted vehicle, » Dr, Abu Bakarr Kargbo Senior Surgeon Specialist attached to 1 the Connaught Hospital examined the appellant on the 7th day of September 1976 and found that the appellant had permanently lost his right log duc to amputation following a erushed injury, The appellant complained of intormittont pain in his lumbo-eacrad opine | and also restricted movement on that part of his spinal column, ‘The appetiant was tender on the medial aspect of his 1eft ankle, and he complained of pain in his Joint, His evidence corroborated to a large oxtont the evidence of Mr, Ulric Jones. ie admitted 1 that he was paid the sum of Le100,00 and he then put the residual assessuont of the appellant disabilities at 70%, ‘The appetiant having told the Court how the accident happened, was cross-examined on behalf of the respondents, He denied that | he was an apprentice working for the second respondent on the day | Am question. He said that ho paid Mir, Kargbo the sum of Le100,00 és : 1106... [ity SENS Ge RE ee

r b | -106- ee | and Ne, Jones the sun of Leh0.00 but Mrs Jones said that the ey 4 amount paid to nia was the sun of 620,00 for viteh he produced |, esetpt, mite ne wae an the nospital, he bought food te che woes mount ef 10100,00, and that ho spent more than L050,00 wha ne E was attending hospital. He said that he did not know one Bhs aca eas | He donied ‘hat waite the van vas in action he elimbed to ite B - ‘eestjen' cect to emetinian! 1 A witness, but the second respondent gave evidence and called 4 witnesses, His evidence was that on the 7th February, 1976 he | score van WR. 8567 ant that At vat one dance tence cea ese van Fee artes tue wen, te the van vue banded te ties ore tes tes eas } appellant vere the apprentices, He recalled the 7th February 1976 von the vin vas Snvolved in an accident at Jum Town uhtte no ccc Proceeding from Yana Beach. There were hille and pot holes on ene Feud, Ho closed the van after Mts apprentices had entenes ae as oe ee Dy shouting one bell", ile stopped after travetuitig a share Gtetance and alighted, Wo then saw the appellant ying os the rona | with one of the baskets, He did not know what had happened when he | Monrd the ca1t for tone bei1* and ne did not reverse the van va | answer to Mr. Betts, learned Counsel who appeared for appollant at | the trial, he said that he made a statement to the Police a day * sfter the accident, te dented that he told the Police thas ae Jonded seven large baskets of fish on the carrier, the saad nat BRR ee ee a signalled to him that the | sopeizent ical seyceteen eee denied that he was charged | with the offence of carrying passengers at the entrance and aise 2 dose Sox careying peveceneret eee Proper sitting accommodation, 1 Bkundayo Taylor gave evidence on behalf of the respondents. | This witness deposed that he knew the 2nd respondent and the a appellant. About two years Previously, a Mazda Van driven by the ne) SEE

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