Podcast
Questions and Answers
What was the outcome of the judgment for the defendants?
What was the outcome of the judgment for the defendants?
- The defendants were fined for negligence in maintaining the vehicle.
- The defendants were found not liable to indemnify the plaintiff. (correct)
- The defendants were ordered to pay £855 to the plaintiff.
- The defendants received a warning from the judge.
What was identified as the cause of the second accident involving the vehicle?
What was identified as the cause of the second accident involving the vehicle?
- Defective steering wheel mechanism.
- Non-maintenance of the vehicle resulting in a steering bolt falling off. (correct)
- Incorrect tire pressure.
- Negligence in repairing the car.
How did the judge characterize the expert evidence provided by automobile engineers?
How did the judge characterize the expert evidence provided by automobile engineers?
- Inconclusive and theoretical.
- Scientifically sound and practically real. (correct)
- Scientifically unsound and impractical.
- Biased and unreliable.
What does the judge's statement 'expert evidence is to be received with reserve' suggest?
What does the judge's statement 'expert evidence is to be received with reserve' suggest?
What did the plaintiff claim from the defendants under his insurance policy?
What did the plaintiff claim from the defendants under his insurance policy?
What type of proceeding was the appeal in this case?
What type of proceeding was the appeal in this case?
When did the plaintiff insure his Morris Minibus with the defendants?
When did the plaintiff insure his Morris Minibus with the defendants?
Who repaired the Morris Minibus after the first accident?
Who repaired the Morris Minibus after the first accident?
What caused the defect in the steering mechanism of the Morris Minibus during the second accident?
What caused the defect in the steering mechanism of the Morris Minibus during the second accident?
What kind of guarantee did C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra provide to the plaintiff regarding repairs?
What kind of guarantee did C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra provide to the plaintiff regarding repairs?
Why did the defendants refuse responsibility for completing repairs after the second accident?
Why did the defendants refuse responsibility for completing repairs after the second accident?
What was common ground between the parties regarding the cause of the defect in the steering mechanism?
What was common ground between the parties regarding the cause of the defect in the steering mechanism?
What is the main reason for the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company?
What is the main reason for the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company?
Why did the defendant company refuse to complete the repairs on the plaintiff's vehicle?
Why did the defendant company refuse to complete the repairs on the plaintiff's vehicle?
What was the main argument of the plaintiff in this case?
What was the main argument of the plaintiff in this case?
Why did the court reject the plaintiff's claim for the full insured value of the vehicle?
Why did the court reject the plaintiff's claim for the full insured value of the vehicle?
What impact did the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle properly have on his claim?
What impact did the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle properly have on his claim?
Why did the court find that £855 was not a valid amount for the plaintiff's claim?
Why did the court find that £855 was not a valid amount for the plaintiff's claim?
What becomes synonymous with Faith according to the text?
What becomes synonymous with Faith according to the text?
According to Lord Campbell, what is the bias that skilled witnesses come with?
According to Lord Campbell, what is the bias that skilled witnesses come with?
Why do witnesses sometimes see their views align with the wishes of the parties calling them?
Why do witnesses sometimes see their views align with the wishes of the parties calling them?
What does the text suggest about the judgments of zealous partisans?
What does the text suggest about the judgments of zealous partisans?
What did the learned trial judge focus on when making the judgment?
What did the learned trial judge focus on when making the judgment?
Why is it surprising to see witnesses align their views with parties' interests?
Why is it surprising to see witnesses align their views with parties' interests?
What was the main defence of the defendant company in the case?
What was the main defence of the defendant company in the case?
Who had the burden of proving that the vehicle was not maintained in efficient condition?
Who had the burden of proving that the vehicle was not maintained in efficient condition?
What caused the accident involving GLR 4 according to common agreement?
What caused the accident involving GLR 4 according to common agreement?
How did the nut on the steering drop arm come off, according to expert witnesses?
How did the nut on the steering drop arm come off, according to expert witnesses?
What did the trial judge's finding indicate about the defect in the steering mechanism?
What did the trial judge's finding indicate about the defect in the steering mechanism?
Why did the defendant company fail to prove that the plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle efficiently?
Why did the defendant company fail to prove that the plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle efficiently?
Study Notes
Insurance Policy Dispute
- The plaintiff, SASU, insured his Morris Minibus with White Cross Insurance Co. Ltd. on December 31, 1956.
- On March 27, 1957, the vehicle was involved in an accident, and the defendants instructed C.F.A.O. Ltd., Accra, to repair it.
- On June 12, 1957, C.F.A.O. Ltd. wrote to the plaintiff, confirming that they gave a guarantee for the work done on the vehicle, similar to the guarantee given by Nuffield on new vehicles.
Second Accident and Dispute
- On September 3, 1957, the vehicle was involved in another accident due to a defect in the steering mechanism.
- The cause of the defect was a disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm, resulting from a nut on it having gradually worked loose and stripping the thread on the drop arm.
- The defendants refused to be responsible for the repairs, claiming that the defect was due to the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle in an efficient condition.
Court Proceedings
- The plaintiff instituted an action against the defendants, claiming the full insured value of the vehicle, £855.
- The learned judge, Ollennu, J., referred to the expert evidence and found that the cause of the second accident was the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle, resulting in the bolt on the steering falling off.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the expert evidence was not sufficient to absolve the defendants of liability.
Judgment of Van Lare, J.A.
- Expert evidence should be received with reserve, and judges should form their own opinion on the whole of the evidence.
- The learned judge erred in accepting the expert evidence without question and dismissing the plaintiff's claim.
Decision and Liability
- The defendant company failed to discharge their burden of proving that the plaintiff did not maintain the vehicle in efficient condition.
- The facts proved that the cause of the accident was a disconnected ball-joint at the steering drop arm, resulting from gradual wear and tear, which was not the result of the plaintiff's failure to maintain the vehicle.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
Analyzing the court case of SASU v. WHITE CROSS INSURANCE CO.LTD. in the Court of Appeal on January 18, 1960, focusing on expert evidence, the judge's duty to form an opinion on all evidence, and the handling of vehicle insurance claims.
