PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Solomon Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of Solomon Islands >> 1998 >> [1998] SBHC 29

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Hill v Fera [1998] SBHC 29; HC-CC 313 of 1996 (18 May 1998)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 313 of 1996

GEORGE HILL

class="Mss="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> v

class="Mss="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> JOHN FERA

High Court of Solomon Islands

Before: Lungole-Awich, J
Civil Case No. 313 of 1996

Hearing: 17.4.1998
Judgm18.5.1998

<

Counsel: A. Nori for Plaintiff;
A. Rffe for Defendant

/p>

p class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> (LUNGOLE-AWICH J): The Facts. The case of the plaintiff, Mr. George Hill, as stated in his writ of summons dated 22.10.1996, filed on 23.10.1996, was a straight forward one. Mr. Hill averred that: He was the owner of vehicle No. 9243 which he operated as a taxi in Honiara to earn income. On the afternoon of Sunday 26.2.1995, Mr. Francis Ramo, acting negligently, bumped into Mr. Hill’s vehicle thereby causing extensive damage. Mr. Hill has been unable, because of the high costs, to repair the vehicle. On those averments, Mr. Hill has claimed damages being $4,038 for “damage to the vehicle” and $150 per day for 3 months, being lost income from the taxi business. He sued Mr. John Fera, the defendant, not Mr. Francis Ramo because, he said, Mr. Fera was the employer of Mr.Ramo, who at the time was driving Mr. Fera’s mini bus No. A0172 in the course of passenger service business of Mr. Fera. Mr. Fera’s reply was a short and clear one; he has never employed a Mr. Francis Ramo and did not know Francis Ramo.

The Case and the Law

The case is a straight forward case of negligence of an employee, for which an employer is said to be vicariously liable. The law of Solomon Islands on the subject is of course the Common Law of England as deemed appropriate in the circumstances of Solomon Islands. The law about the liability of an employer for the wrong of his employee is that for an employer to be vicariously liable, it must be established that:

1. The employee was liable (in this case in negligence) and

class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> 2. The employee was a in the course of his emploemployment - see the cases of: Staveley Iron and Chemical Co. Ltd. v Jones [1956] AC 627 or [1956] 1 All ER 403 and ICI Ltd v Shatwell [1964] UKHL 2; [1965] AC 656, and compare the judgments in Rose v Plenty [1975] EWCA Civ 5; [1976] 1 WLR 141 and General Engineering Services v Kingston and Sait Andrew Corp [1983] 3 All ER 867. Further, in direct contrast to Rose v Plenty is the case of Conway v George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. No.2 [1951] 2 KB 266 in which an injured passenger, given lift in a truck, contrary to the express instruction of the employer, failed in a suit against the employer.

Tis much divergence of opinions about when to draw the line line at which liability “in the course of employment” stops. The guiding test to determine that an act was in the course of employment is to determine whether, 1. the act was a wrongful act authorised by the employer, or, 2. a wrongful and unauthorised way of doing authorised act. The test is not without difficulties; there are many situations that do not fit in the test. I am fortunate today that in this case I do not have to determine whether the accident occurred in the course of employment, although it appears the question would have not been a difficult one on the facts of the case.

Proof

In court the case turned out to be a difficul, the difficulty was simply in which evidence to believe. The evidence adduced for both the plaintiff and the defendant comprised only the testimonies of witnesses; there were no items of “real evidence” against which to check the testimonies of witnesses. The plaintiff’s witnesses, Mr. Ramo the driver and the plaintiff himself testified in straight forward and credible manners. Ramo, the driver, admitted negligence for which he said he had admitted a traffic offence charge and had been convicted in the magistrates’ court on a plea of guilty. The defendant did not try to contest the negligence of Mr. Ramo, nor that Mr. Ramo drove the mini bus in the course of employment. I think it would have been very difficult to do so when Mr. Ramo himself admitted negligence, and said that he was driving the minibus in passenger service business of the defendant. The defendant fought the case, simply on the ground that a Mr. Ramo was never a driver of the defendant at all, let alone on 26.2.1995, he was not known by the defendant’s employees who included the one who carried out interviews of employees, Johnson Sekulu, witness for defence No.2, and the one who was a driver at the time, Bentley Donga, witness for defence No.3. The defendant said that his conductor at the time was a Mr. Donga and not one named by Ramo as John. He called his driver, Bentley Donga, who testified that he was the driver during the period including 26.2.1995 and that he never knew Ramo, let alone knowing him to have been a driver of vehicle No. A01 72 on 26.2.1995.

The demeanour of all the witnesses on bides were perfect, they ally all sounded believable. They did not contradict themselves or one another. So the case was even. I then had to ask myself a few questions, answers to which I hoped would establish or destroy credibility. The defendant called his supervising employee, and a driver to testify to support his own testimony that Mr. Ramo was never at any time an employee of the defendant, why did he not call the conductor named as Donga, not John as the plaintiff claimed? The question was of course not raised during the trial. The answer could be that the conductor would have supported the plaintiff's case much to the embarrassment of the defendant or, may be the conductor was unavailable or the defendant thought that the two employees called gave sufficient evidence in his defence. On the part of the plaintiff, why did he not subpoena the conductor that Ramo named as John, and the police officer on duty at the police station where both the plaintiff and Ramo were said to have gone to report the accident immediately, or the officer who conducted inspection of the vehicles and possibly of the scene, and if inspection was not done, to testify so? A great deal of details about the identities of the vehicles and their drivers would have been made available to court. The “report” tendered and rejected as exhibit was in fact a photocopy letter addressed, “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”, it was not an official record of reports made to police, the contents would not be probative of any facts. The accident occurred in 1995, and the plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged badly, did he go to the defendant soon after, to ask for compensation? There was no evidence about that, and it remains a point to consider.

Whatever good answers may be able to the questions I havI have raised on both sides, my view is that the omissions that occurred in proving the plaintiff’s case left his case a little weaker than the case of the defendant. The balance of probability is not in favour of the plaintiff. The burden to tilt the case in the plaintiff’s favour was on him. As the balance of proven facts remained tilted slightly in favour of the defendant, or even if it were evenly balanced, the plaintiff’s case must fail. I dismiss his case with costs.

In jurisprudence there is a thing as absolution from the instance, which simplsimply means that a case is evenly balanced and judgment cannot be given to the plaintiff nor can the case be dismissed, but an order of “absolved from the instance” is made. That I think could give court the choice to decline awarding costs. I do not think it is part of our law, so costs in this case must be granted to the defendant.

Dated this 18th


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/1998/29.html