Appiah Vrs Anane [2020] GHASC 27 (22 January 2020)

Key Facts

Issues

• The defendant argued that the accident was not caused by the driver's negligence but by mechanical failure. The Court of Appeal rejected this, finding the driver's negligence responsible. The Supreme Court affirmed this, relying on the lack of valid vehicle documents and the unlicensed driver's role in the accident.
• The defendant challenged the Court of Appeal's award of Gh¢140,000 for non-pecuniary loss and Gh¢10,000 for special damages as excessive. The Supreme Court found the award low compared to the plaintiff's injuries, considering the loss of mobility, genital function, and psychological impact, and increased the damages to Gh¢622,600.
• The defendant disputed the Court of Appeal's acceptance of the medical report stating 100% loss of genital function. The Supreme Court upheld the report's findings, noting the plaintiff's inability to perform sexual functions and the lack of cross-examination challenging the report's validity.
• The defendant denied a contract existed with the plaintiff. The Court of Appeal found an implied contract, and the Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the defendant's authorization of the unlicensed driver and unroadworthy vehicle created a duty of care, leading to vicarious liability.
• The court examined whether the defendant could be held vicariously liable for the driver's actions given that the vehicle's road worthiness certificate and insurance had expired, and the driver was unlicensed. The Court of Appeal upheld the vicarious liability, and the Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the defendant's responsibility under the Road Traffic Act, 2004, for allowing an unlicensed driver to operate an unroadworthy vehicle.

Holdings

• The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision that the defendant is vicariously liable for the plaintiff's injuries, citing the unlicensed driver and unroadworthy vehicle. The court emphasized that expired road use certificates and lack of insurance made the defendant legally responsible.
• The court accepted the medical report (Exhibit 'A') as credible evidence of the plaintiff's 100% loss of genital function, 50% loss of mobility, and 60% psychological injury, despite the defendant's failure to cross-examine the report's author.
• The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal in full, finding no merit in the grounds challenging the Court of Appeal's assessment of liability and damages.
• Damages were increased from GH¢150,000 to GH¢622,600 to account for inflation, the plaintiff's severe and permanent injuries, and the need for realistic compensation. The court cited precedents to justify exceeding the original claim amount.

Remedies

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The court upheld vicarious liability against the defendant for permitting an unlicensed driver to operate an uninsured and unroadworthy vehicle, citing violations of the Road Traffic Act, 2004 (sections 94 and 112) and the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958. The defendant's failure to ensure compliance with legal requirements for vehicle operation directly contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.
• The court emphasized strict compliance with traffic laws, stating that violations (e.g., no insurance, unlicensed drivers) must be enforced to deter negligence and protect public safety. The defendant's disregard for mandatory legal requirements was a key factor in liability.
• The medical report (Exhibit 'A') was admitted as credible evidence since the defendant failed to object to its tender during trial and did not cross-examine the plaintiff to challenge its findings. The court emphasized that unchallenged evidence is deemed admitted and cannot be contested at the appellate stage.
• The defendant's breach of legal obligations (e.g., operating an uninsured vehicle, permitting an unlicensed driver) directly led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the driver was on a 'frolic of his own,' emphasizing the defendant's control over the vehicle.
• The court exercised its procedural power under Order 16 Rule 7 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules to amend the plaintiff's original claim (GH¢400,000.00) to GH¢622,600.00, ensuring the award reflected the plaintiff's actual damages despite procedural limitations.
• The defendant failed to meet its burden to disprove the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding the causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's 100% loss of genital function. The court noted the absence of cross-examination or rebuttal evidence to undermine the plaintiff's case.
• The Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeal's decision to increase damages, finding no error in the legal principles applied. The Court of Appeal's award was based on proper evidence and adherence to precedent, justifying the appellate court's refusal to overturn it.
• The defendant was found to have breached his duty of care under the Road Traffic Act, 2004 by authorizing an unlicensed driver and operating a vehicle without valid road worthiness and insurance certificates, endangering public safety.
• The court applied the standard that evidence not objected to during trial is deemed admitted, reinforcing the plaintiff's standard of proof. The defendant's procedural inaction (no objection/cross-examination) left the medical report's conclusions unassailable.
• The court affirmed a direct causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's 100% loss of genital function, as evidenced by the unchallenged medical report (Exhibit 'A'). The driver's negligence and the vehicle's non-compliance were deemed sufficient to establish causation.

Precedent Name

• Amakom Sawmill & Co v Mansah
• Standard Chartered Bank (Ghana) Ltd v Nelson
• Delmas Agency Ltd v Food Distributors International Limited
• Roach v Yates
• Bradford v Pickels
• H. West & Son Ltd v Shephard

Cited Statute

• Road Traffic Act, 2004
• Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act, 1958
• Road Traffic Regulations, 2012

Judge Name

• Y. Appau
• P. Baffoe-Bonnie
• Anin Yeboah
• N. A. Amegatcher
• G. Pwamang

Passage Text

• The medical report exhibit 'A' concluded: 'We assess his loss of genital functions as one hundred percent (100%). Loss of mobility as fifty (50%) and psychological injury as sixty percent (60%).'
• We vary the award of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded by the Court of Appeal from GH¢150,000.00 to GH¢ 622,600.00. The plaintiff shall recover the sum of GH¢ 622,600.00 from the defendant.
• The Court of Appeal rejected the findings of the trial court that the accident was not negligently caused by the driver of the defendant. This is what the trial judge concluded in his judgment: 'No where did the Police indicate that the Driver of the vehicle drove negligently on that day. In fact, they stated "the truck developed a fault and fell down". This was what the Police told the Court caused the accident.'