Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Bonnie v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1994] PGNC 73; N1194 (14 February 1994)

N1194

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In The National Court of Justice]

WS 179 OF 1991

JUNE BONNIE

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen: Woods J
16 December 1993 & 14 February 1994

Negligence - motor vehicle accident - personal injuries - liability - burst tyre or mechanical defect - standard of care and maintenance expected in a PMV.

Damages - village woman - back and hip injuries

Cases cited
The following cases are cited in this judgement.
Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] 1.A.E.R. 392
Kupon V The State [1980] PNGLR 557
Pupti V Kudjip & The State [1986] PNGLR 283

D L O'Connor for the Plaintiff
P Smith for the Defendant

14 February 1994

Woods J. The Plaintiff is claiming damages for personal injuries suffered by her when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 2 June 1990 on the Okuk Highway just near Kundiawa. The Plaintiff was a passenger on a PMV registration No P 6604 which ran off the road and she was thrown about the interior of the PMV and injured her Pelvis and hips.

The evidence from the Plaintiff is that she got onto the PMV to go to Kundiawa and that the PMV was speeding down the final hill into Kundiawa when a tyre burst and the driver turned into the drain. She was thrown around and injured her hips and body when thrown around. She says she was unconscious and was apparently taken to hospital where she was admitted and treated. She says that the PMV was fully laden with passengers.

A witness Raphael Numdi gave evidence of riding on the same PMV as the Plaintiff. He says that the PMV was going too fast down the hill near Kundiawa town and it ran off the road into the ditch. When this happened everybody was bumped around inside the vehicle.

A police report admitted into evidence infers that the steering may have been loose and the vehicle swerved into the ditch.

The registration and insurance of the vehicle is not in doubt, an appropriate print-out of the insurance details was produced into evidence.

The Defendant denies liability on the basis that there has been no negligence proved against the driver but rather that the accident happened because of a burst tyre or mechanical defect which was out of the control of the driver.

A burst tyre of itself does not necessarily mean that there is no negligence in the driver. We are here talking about a Public Motor Vehicle where one is entitled to expect a stricter standard of care and inspection in the maintenance of the vehicle. Tyres do not necessarily blow out for no cause, as well as a real accident of a nail or such like it could also happen because of the tyre being old and weak and well worn or otherwise knocked around. There is a suggestion of the vehicle being fully laden and speeding. It has not been established that the burst tyre happened suddenly or unexpectedly to a perfectly good tyre. It has not been established that the driver through his care of tyres and the vehicle or through his manner of driving should not be held liable. See the case Barkway v South Wales Transport Co Ltd [1950] 1 A.E.R. 392. In so far as there is a suggestion of a mechanical defect there is no firm evidence of that. There is no technical evidence of that from a qualified mechanic.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the driver and therefore the defendant should be liable for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff in this accident.

On Damages

The Plaintiff is a married woman aged about 24 years involved in the village subsistence economy. She suffered a minor fracture in the lower spine which required hospitalisation and immobilisation for some weeks to allow new bone to form. She now complains of constant pain in the left hip and is unable to walk on rough terrain. As she is expected to perform manual work in the garden and as she said in evidence she grows vegetables for her family and to sell, this pain and disability will severely restrict her activities. This means that for the rest of her life she will be unable to fully participate in the village subsistence economy.

As I said in the case Kama Pupti v Kudjip & The State [1986] PNGLR 283:

"Whilst she may not be the main breadwinner in the family nor would she be assessed on the basis of having been able to obtain employment in the cash economy I must place some value on her role as a village woman which entails a role as a subsistence gardener."

And in that case I followed the comments of the Judge in the case Kopun V The State [1980] PNGLR 557 "it will often be the case that the court will have very little evidence to work upon where the plaintiff is engaged in gardening with little participation in the cash economy."

So as I did in the Pupti Case I will here make a general assessment for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and economic loss. This case before me now is not as serious as the Pupti case. I will assess a global figure of K13,000 for general damages. I will allow interest at 8% on K3000 of that figure from the date of the writ to to-day.

Final verdict is:

I order judgement for the Plaintiff in the sum of K13,669.37.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: D L O'Connor
Lawyer for the Defendant: Young & Williams