Neptune v Lewis

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Nerd, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 07 December 1983
• Neutral Citation: GD 1983 HC 14
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Docket Number: 5 of 1981
• Date: 07 December 1983

High Court

Nedd, C.J.

5 of 1981

Neptune

and

Lewis

Appearances:

D.H. Lalsee for the Plaintiff.

D.C. Williams for the Defendant.

Damages - Cost of replacing motor car damaged in vehicular accident.

Nerd, C.J.

1 The abovenamed defendant having failed to file a defence to the plaintiff's specially endorsed writ in which the plaintiff claimed damages for negligence, judgment was entered on 8th April, 1981 for the plaintiff for damages to be assessed.

2 The plaintiff's claim is for

• (1)

  • (a) cost of replacing motor-car $4,200

  • (b) loss of use of car for 2 weeks at $40.00 a day $560

• (2) damages.

3 The defendant did not challenge the plaintiff's claim of $4200, the cost of replacing the plaintiff's car. He did however challenge the plaintiff's claim for loss of use and for damages, that is general damages. It is clear from the case of Gardiner v. Longford (1965) 9 W.I.R. 402 that loss of use should generally more properly be the subject of a claim for general damages rather than for special damages. This is so because rarely is special damage proved as is the case in the instant suit. In Gardiner's case, Archer, P. citing from the case of the Susquehanna [1926] A.C. 655 had this to say:

“The proper method of calculating damages for loss of use in collision actions has been the subject of discussion on a number of occasions. In the Susquehanna, a case concerning a collision between a steamship and the Prestol, an oil tanker belonging to the Admiralty, Lord Dunedin, after tracing the history of the development of the principles on which such assessment should be based, in the course of which he dealt with the decisions in the Greta & The, the Mediana, and the Marpessa, said at p. 661:

“My Lords, I think that the result of the decisions may be stated in the following propositions:

• (1) There is no difference in this matter between the position in Admiralty law and that of the common law, and the common law says that the damages due either for breach of contract or for tort are damages which, so far as money can compensate, will give the injured party reparation for the wrongful act and for all the natural and direct consequences of the wrongful act.

• (2) If there be any special damage which is attributable to/the wrongful act that special damage must be averred and proved, and, if proved, will be awarded.

• (3) If the damage be general, then it must be averred that such damage has been suffered, but the quantification of such damage is a jury question.

• (4) For a jury question no rigid rules, or rules that apply to all cases, can be laid down, but in each set of circumstances certain relevant considerations will arise...