(HIGH COURT)

SHEIKH IDRIS MOHAMED SHEIKH IDRIS vs. ABU EL GASIM

MOHAMED BEDRI

HC-CS-116-59

Principles

  Negligence—Personal injuries—Damages—Fifty per cent, permanent disability—Modest claim

    The plaintiff was proceeding along a main road at not more than 10—15 m.p.h. on his motor-cycle when the defendant in trying to turn right across the oncoming traffic in his car collided with him. Plaintiff suffered injuries, with the result that he was laid up for six months and would have a fifty per cent. Permanent disability. The plaintiff was forty-three years old and was employed as a Government officer in charge of telephone installations. In an action for negligence he claimed £S.500 damages.
Held: (i) that the accident was caused entirely by negligence of the defendant.
          (ii) that, although £S.500 compensation was a very modest sum for this kind of injuries by Sudan standards, it was not for the Court to award a higher sum than that claimed by the plaintiff.

Action

Advocates: Ahmed Gumaa………………….. for plaintiff

                   Abdel Rahman Youssif …………..for defendant

    Tewfik Cotran (acting J.) :—This is a suit in which the plaintiff is suing the defendant for negligence for personal injury which he sustained as a result of a motor accident which took place on 2nd June 1958 in the cross roads of Kasr Avenue and Gama’a Avenue. I think everyone is familiar with the place of the accident. It is just outside the Main Post Office building in the corner of the street (Kasr Avenue) which leads to the Nile Bank. The sketch—Exh. P. 2—which was prepared by the traffic policeman who arrived at the scene is accepted by both parties. The motor-vehicles (the motor-cycle and the motor-car) were still in the position as at the time of the accident and the sketch, I think, reflects accurately the distances and positions of the parties at the time of the accident. The plaintiff, who is a Government Officer in charge of telephones installations, was riding his motor-cycle and was proceeding alongGama’a Avenue from west to east, i.e., he was going towards the University. The defendant was driving his motor-car also inGama’a Avenue from the opposite direction. The defendant wanted to turn into Kasr Avenue. The collision occurred almost in the middle of the cross roads but more to the left of the road nearer o the Post Office building. It is marked (i) on the sketch P. 2.

                                                           
    I have not the slightest doubt that the whole cause of the accident was due to the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff had the right of way because he was driving straight on the main road. He was driving to the left of the road and I believe his statement that he was not driving more than 10—15 m.p.h. The defendant on the other hand intended to turn into Kasr Avenue. His duty was to halt and make sure that there was no oncoming traffic, and after making sure that he could safely cross, he should have done so. It is obvious that he did nothing of the sort. I think the defendant was candid when he said he did not see the plaintiff. I am not surprised. Defendant had little experience of driving (6 months) and he had an employed driver who was with him in the vehicle at the time. His eyesight is also bad. He wears two sets of spectacles—one for reading and one for long distances. I heard lots of talk about the plaintiff himself striking into defendant’s car. I do not believe it. It is more likely to have been the other way. In my opinion it matters not who struck who first. It is so obvious that defendant caused the accident and the plaintiff did not contribute one iota to it. He expects the road to be clear before him and he cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence because he was unable to apply his brakes when in fact it was the defendant who was crossing his right of way. I do not mean by this that if a motorist sees another motorist driving negligently and without due care that that former motorist should not himself exercise some care. But here this does not arise as the collision happened suddenly, and there was hardly any time to apply brakes.

    I do not propose to cite authorities in this case. None is needed. Whether or not there was contributory negligence depends on the facts as believed by the Court and the facts are clear. I can find no evidence at all of contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

   We now come to the more difficult question of damages. I am not at all happy at the way the Statement of Claim was drafted. The plaintiff is represented by a leading advocate and I am surprised that the damages claimed did not include a specific sum for actual and potential medical expenses, as well as loss of salary, which plaintiff has suffered, plus of course general damages for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, etc. Here £S.500 damages are asked for. I have seen the plaintiff and I also saw his injury which has not yet healed. I have heard a description of the injury from the most eminent surgeon in the Sudan. The plaintiff was admitted to hospital on 3rd June 1958 and stayed there for five weeks until 7th July 1958. He was then sick-listed for six weeks and had to be readmitted to hospital for further treatment on 24th August 1958. He was discharged from hospital for light duty on 12th October 1958. In November 1959 plaintiff was again readmitted for seven days because of inflammation. All in all he had spent six months laid up. The injuries were quite severe,

        There was a compound fracture of the lower end of the right leg, and a big lacerated wound of the sole and heel of the right foot. The compound fracture was in plaster and the wound to the sole and heel had to be grafted. The wound has not healed and plaintiff has a permanent disability of 50 per cent. The date of this report (Exh. P. 1) is x6th February 1959. In fact the plaintiff had complications. Dr. Bayoumi says:

     “Plaintiff suffered great pain initially which will gradually decrease until it becomes a permanent discomfort, but he might develop arthritis and will always limp.”

     These are not good prospects for a working man of forty-three who works out of doors on telephone installations. He is only claiming £S.500 for all this! I think this is a very modest sum even by Sudan standards. I think the defendant and hence his insurers are lucky. I was prepared on the evidence to award a larger sum, but this is the business of his legal advisers, not mine. I therefore give judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed with costs.

                                                                                        (Judgment for plaintiff) 1

1On revision (HC-REV-56-60)