Rs 150,000 Damages to Injured Lady
13 Octobre 2014 - Défi Media Group
Bibi Feroza Johar, a resident of Hitchcock Avenue, Rose-Hill, who was severely wounded by a car while she was standing at the entrance of her residence, has obtained Rs 150,000 as damages at the Intermediate Civil Court.
In a judgment delivered two weeks ago, Magistrate Maryse Panglose-Cala has ordered Cyril Tour, defendant No 1 and Mauritius Eagle Insurance, the company where the car involved in the accident was being insured (defendant No 2) to pay to the plaintiff jointly and in solido that amount with interest at the legal rate from the day the action was lodged up to the date of final payment. The plaintiff’s plaint mentions that she was seriously injured and spent 15 days at Victoria Hospital where she had to undergo surgery. The accident occurred as a result of the exclusive “faute”, imprudence and negligence of driver of vehicle No FE 474, Cyril Tour, while defendant No 2 is being sued as custodian of the vehicle involved in the accident.
Mention is made that the plaintiff is now permanently 15% incapacitated and that the two defendants are jointly liable for the prejudice she suffered. The plaintiff has claimed Rs 500,000 as damages from both defendants. The Magistrate found the liability of the driver has been proved on a balance of probabilities. ”It is clear that defendant No 1 caused the accident at the material time by knocking the plaintiff with the nearside mirror of the vehicle No FE 474 and passing on her left ankle fracturing it.
He was driving the said vehicle without due care and attention. He was negligent and imprudent by driving onto that piece of cement where she was standing in front of her gate. In fact, he said he was looking straight ahead. However, he did not keep a proper lookout for all the users of the road and failed to exercise the duty of care a reasonable and prudent driver should have in the circumstances. It is only when he heard a noise “plak” that he realised his rear mirror had gone back. In fact he had lost control of his vehicle and gone too close to that piece of cement which PS Powakel said was 6 metres long. He made an error of judgment as he was 88 years old at the time of the accident. Hence it is clear that defendant No 1 is responsible for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The accident happened by the “faute” of defendant No.1.”