Moses v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGLawRp 509; [1993] PNGLR 63 (22 July 1993)

PNG Law Reports 1993

[1993] PNGLR 63 - Waro Moses v MVIT 

[1993] PNGLR 63

N1159

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WARO MOSES

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen

Woods J

17-18 June 1993

22 July 1993

NEGLIGENCE - Motor vehicle accident - Elements of cause of action.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed that he sustained injuries in an accident caused by the negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle on which he and others took a paid ride. He claimed that he was rendered unconscious by the accident and regained consciousness later in hospital. Neither he nor his witnesses were able to identify the vehicle apart from stating that it was a white Toyota Landcruiser utility. He knew neither details of its registration nor the name of the driver.

Held

To take an action against the Motor Vehicles Insurance Trust for damages for injuries received in a motor vehicle accident, it is necessary to prove three things: there must be an accident; then there must be a vehicle properly identified or, if not so identified, proper search and enquiry should be made; then there must be injuries or loss of life because of negligence.

Counsel

D O'Connor, for the plaintiff.

A Kandakasi, for the defendant.

22 July 1993

WOODS J: The plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries he received when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the Enga Highway between Laiagam and Wabag on 6 March 1990.

He states he was at Sirunke looking for a PMV to go to Wabag when a Toyota Landcruiser utility came along and offered him and others a ride. It appears that they paid a fare for the ride. Shortly after they boarded the vehicle, the driver failed to negotiate a bend and the vehicle ran off the road and overturned. The plaintiff states he was rendered unconscious in the accident and regained consciousness later in hospital. The plaintiff is unable to identify the vehicle apart from it being a white Toyota Landcruiser utility. He did not know the registration nor the name of the driver.

Another person, David Ipata, gave evidence of being with the plaintiff, getting onto the vehicle, and the vehicle running off the road and overturning. He was unable to provide any more details of the vehicle than the plaintiff, namely that it was a white Toyota Landcruiser utility. Both witnesses agreed that there were about 10 people on the back.

A policeman, Senior Constable Kalo, gave evidence that on the afternoon of Tuesday 6 March 1990 he was on duty at Wabag Police Station when a man called Biliki Balakau rushed in and said he was driving a vehicle along the road from Laiagam to Wabag when he had an accident and, as a result, a young boy broke his leg. Mr Balakau produced his driver's licence and gave the registration number of the vehicle. The policeman had no transport and, so, was unable to attend the scene that day. The following day, he attended the scene, which he identified by seeing skid marks and broken glass. The vehicle was no longer there. The policeman then interviewed the plaintiff in the Sopas Hospital. The policeman never saw the vehicle, but certain documents were produced to him some days later, supposedly for the registration and insurance. The policeman never saw the driver again. He did suspect him of having been drinking when he came to the police station on the day of the alleged accident.

To take an action against the Motor Vehicles Insurance Trust for damages for injuries received in a motor vehicle accident, it is necessary to prove three things. First, there must be an accident. Then there must be a vehicle properly identified or, if not so identified, proper search and enquiry should be made. Then there must be injuries or loss of life because of negligence. So, has the plaintiff satisfied these three prerequisites? There appears to be no doubt that he was injured, but has he satisfactorily identified the vehicle which caused these injuries? All the plaintiff says is that he was given a lift in a white Toyota Landcruiser. He did not know the owner, nor the driver, nor the registration. His father later took some documents to the police station purporting to come from the subject vehicle, which identify a vehicle registered in the name of the Enga Research Management Company. A policeman gave evidence of a man called Biliki Balakau rushing in and reporting an accident involving a vehicle registered number AFZ 587, but giving no papers to prove this registration. That person did not give any evidence in court. That person apparently rushed out from the police station and has never been seen again. The policeman never saw the vehicle.

Is this sufficient evidence to mount a claim against the Trust? There was nothing from Mr Balakau to identify him with the papers later brought in referring to the Enga Research Management Company. The policeman was never able to confirm that the vehicle referred to in the documents of registration was the subject vehicle. He only reported what he was told. He never confirmed anything with any independent evidence. The policeman never saw the vehicle. There is no one identifying the vehicle referred to in the insurance papers as the vehicle on which the plaintiff was a passenger and which went off the road and caused the plaintiff's injuries.

This is all just not good enough, it is too casual. I must, therefore, dismiss the claim.

Lawyer for the plaintiff: O'Connor & Hasu.

Lawyer for the defendant: Young & Williams.