AHMED EL HAG MOHAMMED NUR, Plaintiff v. ABDEL GHAFFAR MOHAMMED MAHMOUD, Defendant
Damages-Pain and suffering-Element of damage in personal injury action
Evidence-Criminal judgement-Used as evidence in subsequent civil action on
same [acts
Negligence-Duly of care-s-Driver oj motor vehicle
Negligence-Standard 0/ care-Man of ordinary prudence
Plaintiff was riding his bicycle one night when he was run into by a
car negligently driven by defendant. Plaintiff sued defendant in negligence
* Court: Ahmed Abbas 0.1.
for damages in respect of his personal injuries and the damage to his bicycle
resulting from the accident. Defendant denied that he had been driving
negligently and that this had caused the accident.
Held: (i) In an action for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that
(a) circumstances existed in which the defendant owed him a duty of care,
(b) the defendant committed a breach of that duty by failing to exercise
the proper standard of care. and (c) this breach resulted in the damage to
the plaintiff in respect of which the plaintiff is suing.
(ii) The proper standard of care in any circumstances is that care
which a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in these circumstances.
(iii) A decision in a criminal action may be looked to as evidence in a
subsequent civil action arising out of the same facts.
Action
November 6, 1940. Ahmed Abbas DJ.: The plaintiff in this
suit claims £E.70 as compensation or as general damages for:
(a) Pain suffered by him during the period of his treatment.
(b) Personal injuries, the result of which is a permanent dis-
ability assessed by the medical board at 35%
(c) The inconvenience to which he is put by reason of such
permanent disability.
(d) The cost of repairs to his bicycle.
These damages were caused by the collision which occurred
between the plaintiff and the defendant at Wad Medani on the night
of January 3, 1940, in an open street, while the plaintiff was riding
his bicycle, and the defendant was driving his Ford touring car neg-
ligently.
The defendant denies that he was driving negligently, but the
negligent driving of the defendant was already established in the
criminal proceedings before the Magistrate: file No. 41.E20/40 in
the district commissioner's office at Wad Medani, It was decided ill
those proceedings that the defendant was recklessly and negligently
driving his car so as to endanger the plaintiff. The defendant was
well over on his wrong side of the road; he was going at a considerable
speed and it took him twenty yards to pull up. The plaintiff was
on his proper side of the road.
The defendant was fined ££.3 for his negligent driving, of
which £E.2.670 m/ms was ordered by the magistrate to be paid
to the plaintiff in order to defray the hospital expenses incurred by
him.
To show that the defendant was negligent it is required to prove
that his conduct was blameworthy for lack of the required care. The
following essentials for liability for damages caused by negligence must
be proved:
(a) That there was a legal duty owed by the defendant towards
the injured party to use care towards him.
(b) That there was a failure to perform that duty, and that
the duty had therefore been violated.
(c) That the defendant's negligence, in not using due care, has
caused the damage to the plaintiff.
Here the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty to use care
towards him. The care required to be exercised by the defendant
in any circumstances is that care which would be exercised by a
man of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. The defendant
here failed to perform his duty of care, which he violated by negligently
driving his car in the way established in the proceedings before the
magistrate, and that negligence of the defendant has caused the dam-
age to the plaintiff of which the plaintiff now complains.
Judgement for plaintil