IN THE HIGH COURT 
OF SOLOMON ISLANDS                    		
Civil Jurisdiction

BETWEEN:  	WILLIE ALUFO’OA		 	-	Claimant

									
AND:                     DUDLEY NATEI        			 -	1st Defendant

                               ATTORNEY GENERAL		 -	2nd Defendant

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 6 October 2016

Mr. A. Hou for claimant
Ms. R. Maefiti-Soma for Attorney General.

Application for damages for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident

Brown J:

No defence has been made since the Claim was filed on the 24 November 2014. Nearly two years have elapsed and today, an application is made for further time since the Government Department may give instructions within the next 7 days. The proceedings were listed for trial today on the 29 July last and shall proceed.  Mr. Hou represents the claimant and is ready.  Further adjournments are refused.

The claim is set out in the statement of case and the affidavit in support. Mr. Hou relies on the statement in support of his client’s statement of case. He relies on the material in that statement in support as going to prove the case.

This is a claim for damages caused in a motor vehicle accident when the claimant’s vehicle ran into the back of the vehicle driven by the defendant, Duddley Nata. The claimant’s vehicle, a Toyota Corolla was damaged and the claimant seek to recover “the average sum of $ 34,820 for the cost of repairs” No evidence has been given by way of quotes for repairs to justify the claim.

The vehicle, it is alleged, was off the road since the accident and the claimant also seeks to recover moneys for lost income from average daily earnings from his taxi business at the rate of $ 700 per day since the time of the accident until judgment for the claimant has been unable to carry on his business. None of these claims have evidence to justify a finding on facts of income of the business or of loss. In any event, this is a traffic accident and where the alleged business of the claimant or the vehicle in this case, has been damaged, the defendant is not responsible for the apparent impecunious state of the claimant business affairs, when the business fails or refuses to repair the vehicle within a reasonable period of time.  The claimant may be liable for the time the vehicle is off the road undergoing repairs but is not liable for continuing loss when the claimant is under a obligation to mitigate his loss.  Maybe 5 days to repair the vehicle would be reasonable although there is no evidence to show what repairs were needed or the state of the vehicle before the accident. No claim for moneys at large like this may succeed since such a head of damage is not recognized at law. 
Had the driver been unable to carry out his duties through injury, he may have had a claim for loss of income, reduced perhaps by the extent of his contributory negligence. 

For at it clear in civil proceedings, notwithstanding the alleged fact that the driver of the preceding vehicle had been charged and convicted of an offence under the Motor Traffic Act, the following driver would be responsible for the damage to his own vehicle, through failing to keep a proper look out ahead, driving to close in the circumstance to be able to stop, not keeping a safe distance away from the vehicle in front to be able to stop in an emergency, or failing to keep a proper lookout, all matter going to his contributory negligence. Since the claimant says he was travelling at much the same speed as the vehicle in front before it stopped and since the obligation rests on the following driver to avoid running up the back of the vehicle in front, a fair apportionment of blame in these circumstance may be 90/10 where the following vehicle is responsible for 90% of the damage to both vehicles. 
While no claim has been made against him for damages for his negligence in running up the back of the government vehicle, such a claim is not yet time barred.

It is important to appreciate that different considerations apply between the Motor Traffic Act and the common law of negligence. For this case seem to be predicated upon the fact of the traffic offence conviction and takes no account of the common law as to negligence and responsibility to look after ones own safety and that of a vehicle being driven, for common law places the onus on the following vehicle to avoid an accident. 

I need not look to see whether the 2nd defendant is to be held liable for the actions of its driver, for I am not satisfied, in the absence of evidence in support of the cost of repair that any claim has been made out.
As I say, no claim may be made in the circumstance where the financial situation of the business is sought to the held to account of the defendant.

The claim fails. The application for damages is refused. The proceedings are dismissed.
The claimant shall pay the defendant costs.

__________________
BROWN J