SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL SUIT NO.: 218 OF 1993
HONEY BUN BAKERY LTD.
Miss Mira Commissiong for Plaintiff
Mr. Richard Williams for 1st named defendant
2nd named defendant unrepresented
2000: September 20, 28, October 2, December 20
 ADAMS J. By writ filed on 19th May, 1993 the plaintiff sued the two
defendants for negligence allegedly arising in relation to a motor accident,
when a collision took place between the plaintiff vehicle bearing
registration number T 9955 and motor vehicle H 8942 admittedly owned
by the first named defendant hereinafter called Hackshaw and the second
named defendant hereinafter called (Moore ).
 No defence having been entered by Moore judgment in default of such
entry was ordered on the 14th day of July, 1993.
 On the 1st day of April 2000 the evidence against the defendant
Hackshaw was duly led but was not continued until the 28th September,
2000 when the taking of evidence was concluded. At the September
hearing both defendants were present and they both testified for the
reasons given in the ensuing paragraph.
 Counsel for the plaintiff explained that since she had reason to believe
that Hackshaw might not be available for the September hearing she had
in fact subpoened the defendant Moore. He was put in the witness box,
and cross-examined by Mr. Richard Williams on behalf of his client
 Was the defendant Hackshaw to incur any liability on the facts presented
at the hearing? I find that he was –
 Hackshaw admitted that on the 21st of January 1993 i.e the day before
the accident he had gone to Owia, the 22nd day of January 1993 being a
holiday. He admitted that the defendant Moore who did mechanical work,
had worked on his (Hackshaws) motor car from time to time.
 Hackshaw testified that he never knew him (Moore) to have a drivers
licence but that on the 21st day of January he had employed Moore for the
purpose of repairing his brakes.
 I accepted the evidence sworn to by Moore that Hackshaw had in fact
borrowed Moore vehicle to take his family to Owia and that during that
time the defendant Moore was expressly or impliedly called upon by his
“employer” Hackshaw to drive the latters vehicle since Moores function
was to test that vehicles brakes. I find the inference irresistible that to
execute the function of repairs to the brakes inevitably involved impliedly
or express by authority to drive the relevant vehicle in this case the one
owned by Hackshaw.
 The authority of Gurrucharran V Racharie 1968 11 W.I.R. 443 cited by
counsel for the plaintiff, provides an analysis of the concept as to how
liability may be incurred by an owner of a vehicle when such vehicle is
negligently involved in an accident and being driven at the time by
someone else. In dealing with the concept Sloby C said:
“The law is that the owner of a vehicle is liable
for negligence of the driver if the driver is his
servant, or even though the driver was not the
owners servant, if the driver had the owners
authority express or implied to drive the car
on the owners behalf.
 I move on now to the question of damages-
 Evidence of special damages was led by the plaintiff through the witness
Yvonne Williams and Mrs. Hoyte. The cost of repairing and towing the
vehicle substantiated by documents from Joyette Auto Collision Works
and Auto Supplies Ltd. indicating expenditure of $19,496.57.
 The loss of the use of the plaintiffs vehicle gave rise to a further sum of
damages, based on this principle, an owner of a chattel who is wrongfully
deprived of its use may recover damages for loss of use even if no out of
pocket expenses are incurred or the chattel would not have been used
during the time that the owner is deprived of its use. (See Caxtor
Publishing Co. – Sutherland Publishing Company) – 1938 4 A.E.R p 389.
 I accepted the evidence provided in respect of the loss of use of the
plaintiffs vehicle and qualified as being the amount of twenty nine (29)
days at one hundred dollars per day.
 The cost of towing the vehicle I accepted as being three hundred and
 The total amount of damages to be paid to the plaintiff would be twenty
two thousand seven hundred and seventy six dollars and fifty seven cents.
 Costs will be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff to be taxed of not
High Court Judge