URICA WILLIAMS v ALFRED CHARLES

I I I -1 ',. '\ :\) \J ... . t ' , SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADiNES t' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE r '. ' " . SUIT NO 211 OF 1993 1I': . f BETWEEN: I I ' ., " :. URICA WILLIAMS f ; .. ! AND I ! I , I ALFRED CHARLES I ,I I DANT , " .1 , A.F. Williams for the plaintiff f I' C.D. Dougan QC and Ms, A YOWlg for the defendant. i 'I I 1" f " , 2nd December, 997' : ,,' De.ivered Deee .Ibel 1997, " ,t ,\' ., JUDGMEN . I I BAPTISTE J. '" ' • t\ • . I " ~ ." " I . I , , . ( This action was eohunenced ib/ a' !;pecially entrsed; ~t 9f.,s"JJI1mons The Statement ofClaiu s • .ates as follo~s:" . I' .' i ' I' , I ~ . 111. On the 5th dt..y of December 1992 the Plaintiff and the Detl C:tan were • .; . , ted\17ili May, 1993,', ' " ' . . I , attending a dance ~t Tode's Disco at B}1'ea. . t , I

2.The Defendant asked the Plaintiff for a r~~ ~ ~d,.lvas, ~Id • I '. ' :t ~~ PI;~tiff II' was n2t dandng ~th him.' . "I 1 ~ . 111' , . ~ " • , , :'i ' '

3.The Plai:ltiffml )ved away and the Defepdan~ wat~ed behind ~e . Jaintiff , and pullCiJ the Plaintifrs pants anti the ~laintjl f pushed the "tl dant. ' .• I : ~, , t " I . . , ' 'I

4.The Defendant cuffed the Plaintif£in at tiice resulting in th ;P~ . r 't' falling to the groWld. The Defendant ~n kicked the P-lainti • .r. ' , t r . .",I ; .

5.The D~fendant later cut the, Plaintiffo~ ~er ~ with a knife 'the~taJlf in consequence received an injury takin~ eleven (1.1 ) sutures: e. • , . I r" t I ; I . .r •

6.As a result ofthe action ofthe Defen t, the Planitiff recei ed ~juries .. • " ~ • t I suffered loss and damage. '\ r" t .­ I , I I PARTICULARS OF INmRY: " :~!~,' i: I . I " I . Deep laceration extendiug irom prime of ~e Ie 'e'ar. io th~ cotner ~ the ~OUth ~t • I " laceration requited eleven til) sutures." I l' .i " The Plaintiffas a consequence Claim.,damages, furthe1 ~r other relici and:C sts. The Defendant in hi~ defence filed on the 25th of Jun+ 191"J admitted ~i" . rutl r Jll J.i of tt~· I ' Statement of Claim but d~nied paragraphs ?, 4, 5 and fthereof. : 'f Paragraphs 2 to 8 of ~ defenc , stalef: I· . : ~ ,. o·, , i . , .. , 'I., "2. The Pefendant contenC':J that when the iilintiff retused to " '. t I . • on the night oflt1 e 6Ut December 1992 he courteously aske tb Pla.intiff '. her re8!Uln for so doing therellJK!~the P "'uiff.sfl8lllled the : efi, <\ant by , ... . , .., .. , I:', splttmgmfo her race. . . ; fl" t' 3. , Soon thereafter Ih' PIai'ntiff fUrther assauited t.e de~endant i ~ ~ m ' violently on the cl~e, v. 'til a Hairoun pi~t. .Th(~ defe~danire alia!ed'by " I slapping the Plaintit;r and both parties held ont 0 each bther. In J.e process ' the Plaintiff -rore off the defendant's lon~ sleeve'~yo~ shirt. 'I \ r ..1 • ' k ~ 'III' t ' f ' • .:f 4. In the fif-ht that ensued, both the Plaintiffand Defendant feU to th : f1rur . . , . I whereupon the lJe.f(:ndant ~ kiCiked on the bead by someo e 'wfImown. , . , I ",:' , . , I t I. , . 5. The PJaintiff went out of t1i.e bui1d~~g ~d returned in about ve Jpinutes . r" ~ . t . Ir', ' with a broken bottle in her ha!ld and acdompanied by about ttJn m~n. ,. !l . 6. The PlOintiffunlawfully 'poinltd ' the' ~ ~rd~ "!I1I:e tow !ds the Defendant, who, to pro.ct himself !f'he was entititd to , ked away the Plaintif's,hand and held on ~it'het ~d ~I~~ th H'l1rokea bottle so as to a.void being injured by th Plaintiff. '. . . ; . , : " f' I

7.A crowd gathered a ,d'the Plaintiffln rut a~mpt to'plunge : the Detendant ' stumbled and feU t~ the ground whlle h+ldf~ the ~roken bo: ~~. t . ... I ' , . , •. . I. i , ." ..- I , . ,. ~ I I 3' , " , ... I . "

8.No admission is aulde ,as to the all~ge,i'~~ il\i~ no.,' loss ~ .:~., ' " .,: ; COUNrnRtLAI~ ~' , ~ . \ The Defendant ~'pe.ts paragraphs 2, 3, 4; 5 .J6 of the delcnc~. .' '~~S' lB.1 .. ~ ~'I , ,. result of the Plaintiffs asSi..ults on him he sutt~red yeat indir 1i'i)' Pair',' ~os.; i!lld I damage. I ' I .. . ." , I f " , tt PARTI( ULAAS OF SPECIAL ~AMAGE ,. , ... 0' '1 '. j I " , , . " ,• Cost ofRayon shirt S7j ,00. " " (, on tl e 6th of D~ J I And the Plaintiff claims datt.nges." . J ' In her examination in ehref. the Plai ,ltiff testifibd that UncIe Tode's disco at Byre 1, "here there wua dan her for a dance. She refused and -J,alked away. Whil " ' . ca t1e behint;l . . . ' her, started pulling her pants and drc !d behind her. he pu ;hed him. he:Ufii her in. her face. . e on th,e ground she feU on the ground and he startyd kicking her. The Plainti ffdepdseci i, "r' , r " he cut her with a knife. A c0'1in of hers took the D fendant off h~r and ~ok her ~~tsHe.. S~e! went straight to the Geo"getown Hospital vlhere s e was seen by on' D~. Le LC~F' 's.~e , . , , explained th8.t she got t'Yenty two stitches in all. eleven outside pnd cleven nSidl. . " , .. . . Ivor Williams who testified on behalf cfthe Plajltiff said. f . t ,. " . "I know the defendant. I know him from the flght on 6th Decem .. , • at Uncle Tode's disco. As i w~ going ~si<J,: I ~aw them on the fl " " and Alfred CJ:iarles. He! was on top of her. J!pusiied him off be e ilj his hand. cousin. After I push hiI1 'Iffhe 1111 off. He ~ ~ switch' blade l ., Itook offUi!ca from the flOor. I saw blood anti I"sa~,a c~t.O? her{Woll took her ~. 1 " to Georgetown Hospital. It was a "ery big cut. It 'was blee~. qn I ~ul1ed . .... him offbe ran throughtli" door with a knife. ,I F sure.~~ut that." ! i: I r' r t . '! , f The Defendant's version of the 'e'fnts differs marked~ to~ ~ of the .' ~+. H~' statt :i in I' ... " examination in chief: I • : ' . • , " " I , f 'I·, "... On 6th December, 1992 {'went to a discf in Byt'Ca\. ~le , e" ,I sa~ tve: Plaintiff. I did not know her before. When I ~:aw her she Wt s stan : . drinking a " beer. I went to her and asked her Whether I ~Ould, d,anee v,rith, h'r p ea: ~,~ ,f.he' r',. walked away. After l wat:c:ed behind her and l~ ISk~ ': her '.Vhy' :fu,.,.d ot.WlIIli ~ . , , , . dance with ~.. AI\~; she spit in my tlIce. 11~ ~y~ "?~J1J ;~ b '.~ I '." t' ", 1ft, .. . " ,. i.; I 't I;· (t' ' . . asked her for a~: :011 spit in my face. sr, had a ~roU:l~ Ie i~,;:r rn 'l~, It" She lashed ute WIth It In my chest. She held the bottle tn t ~r 'han . It' a hard , ' I blow. She hadd the oottle iii h :r hand. After, s\.pped her ,tealis sh -lashed me '\' with the bottl~. After I slap~ she we hold on a\w figh~..," d : I ".,~' ~ '. • I • It I . . i I .. . .... '­ The Defendant further stated that thC! Plaintiff rip ccording to the "_ [ " ( Defendant, the figh~ing stop.,(. The Plaintiff then w. ?t'outside returned ;·thb~kcn bottle in', her hand, looked until she foun:1 him and pus.het tbC ottle in fbnt of his ;ceo ~ the" IJIOCked . " away her hand she imdS1.ed on com'nA and Ility beg wnStIing for the. ·e. ~'ThCli wrestling ), . . . . I' took them to the grow!d. The Defendant deposed tba he felt a bottle to \ it and a kick, but I ' . " he did not know who did that. After he gOl,away h¢ ran,' H3 went to wo ~'n, -;norring, got a call from the police, a case was '+lade against him ant it ~a:; dis~issed. 'e efendant further <.Ienied huving u knife or culling th}Plaintill: ~. ' • I ' , .' I I ' J,. , ,. r ..1 In cross examination the D.;feniant said that hp ~me •ber~d asking'the PI ,L,' fo~ ad mee. u.~ she refused. He did not pull ber pants and danced be ind her. H~ $tated , : e had bJtfa ~~~ in her hand. He did not see th : Plaintiff with any cut. The broken bottle s' had· ~ SQarp . • i I , pieces. The Defendant fin.1b1 :r explained that h~ did ot get the b~oken . i ,e He in fact left her with the bottle. Th(' Defendant fu er testified that a out around him and he ran outside. He denied that I r 'Williams ~ulled MOn ~len came ,t , ',' off)he Plbti~.. ' , According to the Defendant he does not know how e Plaintiff got cut. ~ it was in co~ I ' ," the next morning he realised ~t she got cut.,· L i .. , l : 'I , ' I • I , , " I I As. can be s.een then: are ""bstar tial diffen:nces in the.evidence ofthe Parti s as~~~+. '. at the disco. It is however incol ttrovertible that the D~end8nt askeC::I ~e,PI . ti~for a 9ance, She ' refused and at the end of it all: she ended up with a c~t fro!D her ear to hmo~"'lta~ to be'" :_' taken to the Georgetown Hospital for, treatment ;' " . ..' I t ' . r :' Ii,,' ': !!;,'P , ill'! / IIi I I find as a fact thaltheplaintitf Ind tile Defendant we~,Comp.et~ ,straJ,l' ,Crs before the 6H •of " , I December 1992. On the 6th of ~cember,1992 both happened to be din a dance at U tcte . . . ; t· '. Tode's disco at Byrea. The Defendan~ came and asker t1Je Plafudff for a and she re~~ I accept the evidence of the Plaintiff that she walk1. away .:ad wllile ;.' 8. the' ~t: came behind her and st1tted pulling ,her pants and ~ced behind m~. ' S 'e 'p ~ him and he felled her with a cuff tOothe face. He s.tarted kicking ier and while s.h~ ".. ' ," gro '~h~ tt, I her with a knife. I . I I find that the Plaintiff's version of ~vents is more co Istent with cred\bili' ; i and her witness to be more oredible .han the Dofen . nt.aoq I as.:cept . " ." i, examination, learned counsel for the Defendant Dougan Qt tri ' , " I ,',I ' , " :. . .t ." • " I . I' ::j I::·1':!' I : I I ! ,,. . .',I. , ,'-t, " ~( , ; I " .' . 'sc i ~esl .. credibility and veruity of tho Plainti' f and her witn' .~', Al"ougJt sOme , . '.. . ! ~ ~~' .. f\ , ! 'I • f, , in their evidence. I BID ofthe view that in substance , ~Y remained'~, (, The Defendanl wo~d like u:u court to beli1 that I : er the, Plaintiff Ie 1 ~. ~vjtllion to '. dance and walked a~y,- he simply ""lked 1.ctlind h t an/1 asked her w' ': did 1)ot want to dance with him and she ¥pu in his face. I do not bei :ve that tha~ is wha ithe Defenda!~ did. r • I I . . . ' ". : evider'}e that he am inclined to the view that he ,did more ti-aan that, ~ I at:cpt the P," . . ~ , pulled her pants and started dandl1g hf'hind her and ~h pushtd him. ',' I totally reject lhe Defendu,I'. ~rtion that he and ~ePlairt~ ~':Ught' !;, os l!. ~tIdisco, . That the second tight occulred'tvhen the Plain'ff~e1 ~utside and return : t a ~,i:okJ~ bp~f ""If '" with three prongs and seare,hed for him. ',:, ~, . ,f . '-I , . " I . . . If, as the Defendant conteuds the Plaintiff returned to' e c:Usco 8CCpmpani , ,p.fteell men. it ~s' : . I - ,'I . not unreasonable to conclude thal he w;)uld have bee tJ~e recipient, of as:, :beating by th~ JI I ::,,: ' • I ' .. .'. ,I men, overwhelmed as he would have been by the mer force ofnumbers,' ' " however Was not' r .~ I ,~ the case, for according to tbe Defendant, nobody id anything at all. (H rar: aWay. Tite , :r:'! J: Defendant deposed in ~nation, ,,~tift ~ mu came around \..e. _~ rani~~de." 'i r 'If;i~lj view the evidence of the Defendant with, grave S lyi"n and I 'reject it ~o' e: of th~se'fifteen.' I II~j;'~£; men intervened. None of these; 6lteen men made any.~PI to siop ibe ~ fi ~. l.accep~ie', ,!,'7~ evidence ofIv or Williams that when he saw the Plaint\rr on 'the gro~d ~ 'Ie • ere trying to run. . .' , . I , "," 'i \ I also accept the evidence oflvor.~i\Iiams thj'1 JJ sa~ the 'litigants '~n'" tto!~ 'J1\t the ~. :1:':' :t Defendant on top of the Plaintiff~md he,pushed;ile rief~~~ off the P . : iiifThe J)e(epdant" ;'~t :,;~, ran off with a switch blade ~jfe '1 ~is!hand. He saw blQ9(f coi,ling, fro Javf"Y big cut OJ the h)1 y jaw of the Plaintiff and he took he_' from the floor and carried her to thergetown Hospital ;i '., ;;} • t I • • f '. f·' q ~ The medical report ofDr, Leacock st~ed that,the Plmkrhad "~deo;p I :~~ cxteitd\n~ fro~, .':/ ,r! the p;,ma ofthe left£"'" to the comer ofthe mouth lhal!laceration req~.e~ ~II) sutmef"·' I' . .. I' ,. .\' ~ !~ . f', ' ,§' r t t I • • l, . : tl ,. ;,:~~ :, • :1, ,f • Learned counsel for/the Defendant submitted that a cpt with a Jaii e:is r 'bly :,.~ straight and;, '::P ;:~;:~ t ' i' ,l. j' . • "II the PJ8intifi's scar is t:urved. The a('c. pled' evidence i tJ l...t the Deft ldan:; i ri ;t hap.ded 'and,th~ , ' '\' .! • I cut was inflicted wh~n the Plajntitl' was on the floor 1 lhg on h~ bacll\vi ~ th Qef~" 40v~ f t'I'1 her. In my view that would place t1.~ left side gf h I facq Fl~ to ~., ,:~ lin. in.~~.';ll~~ struggle there would be no inconsistency between the type o~wound.'s . !. '@.dthenatureof":"il.\l:i1 , 'Ii" the object used to irltlict in. (,' , ' .:;; I;~'~:I , . t II'! , !:' \'t, 'I , "' 1 <'.. ".~ Ii t Learned Queen's Counsol furtte~ slbthiUed iimt if must rule that it is against public policy to approach the court -for dam : ~. t, is, OQ'9l0Wi that: . \;:. . I · t , .. ,. ! L I , • I I i " r 1", . ' i I., '. ..~'; l the d~, ni In his;:o ,f rll~m ~ ,.ainiing there was a fight The•co~ ~so ~Ies thai damages so the Defenclant t Imself has appro!iChed the burt for damages. " ; " , •• I • .' .i ' '. , , Leamed Queen's Counsel also rQf1rn d to the doc~ ~ 9f.e.t turpi c~ \~o oritur actio. In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 17th ep.ition paragraph l2 ~page 588'ii is s .," .. moreover when the act consented to constitutes a crime and the PI¥ntitf is ~ partici :' i muJ;al ~riminal . activity, a civil action ben-teen 1the parties ma~ be b+ed on grounds ofpbli polt;~_~.ex turP.;t causa non oritur actio, 11: is my view that this do¢ 'ne has. no appljca . iii to tile f~ts an'dl \ hichean opetate • J to thwart the Plaintiffs claim for damagFs, 1 I . . t.; . ",:' ',. t • ' , , , " ,!' " i ' ' ,I • , ' • '! '.t I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven her case onla balance of ~robab titie " 1 co~clude ~~t on the 6th ofDecember, 1992 at Uncle rode's discp a Byrea the Defen c the Plaintitfwith " , • I " ' a knife causing a deep laceration e?'tending from the eft ear to ~er mouth lnd "viti" a scar on the left side of her face. All of thi,s occUJring as are' it 'of the Plaindff ex ., g her legitimfe.' ,', right of refusal in relation to a request for a dance SUQh refusal. nlt ' , 1's counterclaim and ' going down well with the D:fendant. There is no sub ( ' ! .~ that counterclaim is dismissed .. ' r" t ; . ; I . , , • I t '. ' . I With respect to general damages, : iearned counsell for thy P~ain~ff Mr. A. .' "'illi~,askec' the I' f. " court to make a minimum gran!. of 51,5.000.00. CounSel also referred,the c urtf' Cornillac I ·St. Louis. 7 WIR 491. Learned Queen's Counsel Mr. Dougan slatc;d tbat no evi nee of gain and f ' • t • . 't • suffering was given and that the Defendant bad not pleaded pain pod suffi ng:.· ! . " I " ,. ' In British Transport COMmission V (Jourley 1956 AC 185 at 206 Lorr! O()(~lPaJrG sa' :1% " ~. : I ,'" I j . , I I , 'I "In an action' for personal injuries the damages ate always livid in~ 'tWo main • . ' ' I'! " '. I • parts. First .mere is wha~ : s referred to as $p...-cial dJun&dcs, w • chI bas to be h '. '\' .; specially pl~ and provcq ... and is generr\\}' capable O;'sub~l~ dr' .~. :i' calculation. 'Secondly there is general dalnagb whitl ~e! law ~ lies! md is t,ot' ~ ,~" ;; specially pl,.,aded. This inclitdes compensati' 'n.for Pai:n'and' . 1M''~t IlItd',the ( I I •• 1 • " I, ~ . . like ..,·, '. • " :.:,". '. . . t. ,"i, ;J. I. It , " 1 " , Pain and suffering th.n "s not an it!m of special damage but one. of th cl s of it. to be , I . r ,• ' considered in assessing gen. :ral damages. It ioes not therefore have to be ~ad , • ~ I • ,I .' In Cornillac V St. Louis 7 WIR 49;' th :: consideratio in mind in assessing general damages in personnel inj ,. r • , .., , ., ',' f • (a) The nature and extent, f injuries sustained; . ' 1.,(, . :'J ; I I l #' I ':1' , (b) The nature and gravity ;)fthe resulting physical di~bi1ity t ' r ',' I ,. (c) Pain and suffering; ",\' : t - ,,~', (d) Loss of amenities; r' , ~\ ' (e) The extent to which pecun ary prospects were afTbfted, ; - I !, , I " I' In the instant case the ~Ievant conside,aPons ~OUI~ ~ items "a'; and I"c'· ~'d:e. nat~ a(I~' f extent of injuries sustained and pain and sUfferiiig. .inere was no resulti g p ysi9fil diJ,bility,­ . " With regard to the nature and extent' of iIljunes' s 'tain~d, the medi :~ , ence i'is that th~ Plaintiffhad "a deep laceration extending from the pi Wi 'Ofthe left ear to' ~ ai~r of lbe'mouth ' : loss of amenities or evidence that the Plaintiffs pec''ary prospects we ~afti din'any wa~, t e is hqwever no . inconceivable that the Plaintiff would not have endu1 pain and suf!'erl~g..Th evidence as to its severity, extent or duration,! • I - I I . .~ , • _ 1, ,; I r t In all the circumstanl:eBof the cl.,s~ in~luding J., ~ ct ~t ap~anen "1'~ was lett ~n the , ., " 'I I I I • Plaintiff's face a sum ofSlO,OOO.Or would represent fi r c!ompenSJliqn IX> • ePljff. " Judgment i. accordingly entered for' the Plaintiff. . ~ ;;"rcnd.ilifs COUR . . ,JaiM' i. di~s~ and it is ordered that the Defendant pays the Plaintiff Ii sum 01 S I ('1,000.0 1generil1l1mpa~: I' , and costs to be taxed ifrot agreed. ,I·, , -, f t'J l ' I i 'I I I I " i '\' .. , .,• i , t ." (, , ,'I ~ I j .. ;. " ­ I I f -,I I t • ,.. , r .:, .' • -,. r '. I · '. .. , " "

. t ‘ , SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADiNES t' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE . SUIT NO 211 OF 1993 1I': . BETWEEN: I f :. URICA WILLIAMS f ; .. ! AND I ! I , I ALFRED CHARLES I .1 , A.F. Williams for the plaintiff f I' C.D. Dougan QC and Ms, A YOWlg for the defendant. i , 2nd December, 997' : ,,’ De.ivered Deee .Ibel 1997, ., JUDGMEN . I I BAPTISTE J. This action was eohunenced ib/ a' !;pecially entrsed; ~t9f.,s”JJI1mons The Statement ofClaiu s • .ates as follo~s:" .

2.The Defendant asked the Plaintiff for a r~~~~d,.lvas, ~Id r~~ ‘. ‘ ,I I DANT ‘,. ‘\ :) \J … “ I ‘ ., “ , “ ‘I I 1″ f “ ” ,t ,\’ ‘” ‘ • t\ • . I “ ~ .” “ I. I , , . ( ted\17ili May, 1993,’, ‘ “ 1 ‘ . . II’ .’ i ‘ I’ , I ~ . C:tan were • .; . , , 1 • I ‘. ‘ :t PI;~tiff II' I I I -1 was n2t dandng ~th him.' . "I 1 ~ . 111' , . ~ “” • , , :'i

3.The Plai:ltiffml )ved away and the Defepdan~ wat~ed behind ~e . Jaintiff , and pullCiJ the Plaintifrs pants anti the ~laintjl f pushed the "tl dant. ‘ .• ‘ 1 I : ~, , ‘ t “ I . . , ‘ 'I

4.The Defendant cuffed the Plaintif£in at tiice resulting in th ;P~ r 't' falling to the groWld. The Defendant ~nkicked the P-lainti • .r. ‘ , t ” r . .",I ; . . -,”

5.The D~fendant later cut the, Plaintiffo~~er with a knife ‘the ~taJlf in consequence received an injury takin~ eleven (1.1 ) sutures: I t. ~ e. • , . I r" t I ; • I “ I’ … I . .r •

6.As a result ofthe action ofthe Defen t, the Planitiff recei ed ~juries .. • ” 1 ~ • t I suffered loss and damage. ‘\ r" t I , I I PARTICULARS OF INmRY: ” :~!~,’ i: I . I I . Deep laceration extendiug irom prime of ~eIe ‘e’ar. io th~ cotner ~ the ~OUth ~t • I “ “ laceration requited eleven til) sutures." I l' .i “ The Plaintiffas a consequence Claim.,damages, furthe1 ~r other relici and:C sts. The Defendant in hi~ defence filed on the 25th of Jun+ 191″J admitted ~i" . rutl r Jll J.i of tt~· 1 I ‘ Statement of Claim but d~nied paragraphs ?, 4, 5 and fthereof. : 'f Paragraphs 2 to 8 of defenc , stalef: I· . : o·, , i . , .. , 1 ,. ~ 'I., ., "2. The Pefendant contenC’:J that when the iilintiff retused to ” ‘. t I . • on the night oflt1 e 6Ut December 1992 he courteously aske tb Pla.intiff 1 ‘. her re8!Uln for so doing therellJK!~the P "'uiff.sfl8lllled the : efi, <\ant by , … . , .., .. , I:', splttmgmfo her race. . . ; fl" t'

7.A crowd gathered a ,d’the Plaintiffln rut a~mptto’plunge : the Detendant ‘ stumbled and feU t~ the ground whlle h+ldf~the ~roken bo: ~~. t . … “ I I’ \ ‘,j , .I , • . ( I. • i . l I. ‘f i , . “ , . e ilj his hand. I , . ,. ~ I I 3' , ” , … I . “

8.No admission is aulde ,as to the all~ge,i’~~il\i~ no.,’ loss ~ .:~., ‘ .,: ; COUNrnRtLAI~ ~’ , ~ . \ “ The Defendant ~’pe.ts paragraphs 2, 3, 4; 5 .J6 of the delcnc~. .’ ‘~~S’ lB.1 .. ~ ~’I , ,. result of the Plaintiffs asSi..ults on him he sutt~red yeat indir 1i’i)’ Pair’,’ ~os.; i!lld I damage. I ‘ I he cut her with a knife. A c0’1in of hers took the D fendant off h~r and ~ok her ~~tsHe..S~e! went straight to the Geo”getown Hospital vlhere s e was seen by on’ D~. Le LC~F’ ‘s.~e explained th8.t she got t’Yenty two stitches in all. eleven outside pnd cleven nSidl. . “ , .. . . Ivor Williams who testified on behalf cfthe Plajltiff said. f . , t ,., ” . “I know the defendant. I know him from the flght on 6th Decem .. , • at Uncle Tode’s disco. As i w~going ~si<J,: I ~awthem on the fl “ “ and Alfred CJ:iarles. He! was on top of her. J!pusiied him off be cousin. After I push hiI1 ‘Iffhe 1111 off. He ~~ switch’ blade l ., Itook offUi!ca from the flOor. I saw blood anti I”sa~,a c~t.O? her{Woll took her ~. 1 ” to Georgetown Hospital. It was a “ery big cut. It ‘was blee~. qn I ~ul1ed . …. him offbe ran throughtli” door with a knife. ,I F sure.~~utthat.” ! i: I r’ r t . ‘! ,f The Defendant’s version of the ‘e’fnts differs marked~ to~ ~of the .’ ~+. H~’statt :i in I’ … “ examination in chief: I • : ‘ . • , ” “ I “ , f ‘I·, “… On 6th December, 1992 {‘went to a discf in Byt’Ca. ~le , e” ,I sa~ tve: Plaintiff. I did not know her before. When I ~:aw her she Wt s stan : . drinking a ” beer. I went to her and asked her Whether I ~Ould, d,anee v,rith, h’r p ea: ~,~ ,f.he’ r’,. walked away. After l wat:c:ed behind her and l~ ISk~ ‘: her ‘.Vhy’ :fu,.,.d ot.WlIIli ~ t , I . ,,, . dance with ~.. AI\~; she spit in my tlIce. 11~~y~”?~J1J ;~ b ‘.~I ‘.” , If” , tt PARTI( ULAAS OF SPECIAL ~AMAGE ‘1 ‘. j “ , • Cost ofRayon shirt S7j ,00. “ I And the Plaintiff claims datt.nges.” . J ‘ In her examination in ehref. the Plai ,ltiff testifibd that UncIe Tode’s disco at Byre 1, “here there wua dan her for a dance. She refused and -J,alked away. Whil “ . . . ‘ her, started pulling her pants and drc !d behind her. he pu ;hed him. he:Ufii she feU on the ground and he startyd kicking her. The Plainti ffdepdseci i, “r’ , .. ..” .,. , … 0′ I (, , , “ “ on tl e 6th of D~ J ‘ . ca t1e behint;l her in. her face. . e on th,e ground r “ ! , t’ “, 1ft, .. . ” ,. “ i.; • ~ 0′ ,II ‘.# I , : e had bJtfa ~~~ had· ~SQarp . • i i ,e MOn ~len came ,t , ‘,’ off)he Plbti~.. ‘ , 4 I ‘t I;· (t’ ‘. . asked her for a~::011 spit in my face. sr, had a ~roU:l~ Ie i~,;:r rn ‘l~, It” She lashed ute WIth It In my chest. She held the bottle tn t ~r ‘han . It’ a hard , ‘ I blow. She hadd the oottle iii h :r hand. After, s.pped her ,tealis sh -lashed me ‘\’ with the bottl~. After I slap~she we hold on a\w figh~..,” d : I “.,~’ ~ ‘. • I • It I [ . . i .. . …. ‘The Defendant further stated that thC! Plaintiff rip ccording to the “ I ” ( Defendant, the figh~ing stop.,(. The Plaintiff then w. ?t’outside returned ;·thb~kcnbottle in’, her hand, looked until she foun:1 him and pus.het tbC ottle in fbnt of his ;ceo ~the” IJIOCked . ” away her hand she imdS1.ed on com’nA and Ility beg wnStIing for the. ·e. ~’ThCli wrestling ), . . . . I’ took them to the grow!d. The Defendant deposed tba he felt a bottle to \ it and a kick, but I ‘ . “ he did not know who did that. After he gOl,away h¢ ran,’ H3 went to wo ~’n, -;norring, got a call from the police, a case was ‘+lade against him ant it ~a:; dis~issed. ‘e efendant further .’ I I ‘ J,. , ,. r ..1 In cross examination the D.;feniant said that hp ~me •ber~d asking’the PI ,L,’ fo~ ad mee. u.~ she refused. He did not pull ber pants and danced be ind her. H~ $tated in her hand. He did not see th : Plaintiff with any cut. The broken bottle s’ I , pieces. The Defendant fin.1b1 :r explained that h~ did ot get the b~oken . He in fact left her with the bottle. Th(‘ Defendant fu er testified that a out around him and he ran outside. He denied that I r ‘Williams ~ulled According to the Defendant he does not know how e Plaintiff got cut. ~it was in co~ I’ ,” the next morning he realised ~tshe got cut.,· L i .. , l : ‘I , ‘I • I, , ” I I As. can be s.een then: are “”bstar tial diffen:nces in the.evidence ofthe Parti s as~~~+. ‘. at the disco. It is however incol ttrovertible that the D~end8nt askeC::I ~e,PI . ti~for a 9ance, She ‘ refused and at the end of it all: she ended up with a c~t fro!D her ear to hmo~”‘lta~to be'” : ‘ taken to the Georgetown Hospital for, treatment ;’ ” . ..’ I t ‘ . r :’ Ii,,’ ‘: !!;,’P , ill’! / IIi I I find as a fact thaltheplaintitf Ind tile Defendant we~,Comp.et~ ,straJ,l’ ,Crs before the 6H •of “ , I December 1992. On the 6th of ~cember,1992 both happened to be din a dance at U tcte … ; t· ‘. Tode’s disco at Byrea. The Defendan~ came and asker t1Je Plafudff for a and she re~~ I accept the evidence of the Plaintiff that she walk1. away .:ad wllile ;.’ 8. the’ ~t: came behind her and st1tted pulling ,her pants and ~cedbehind m~. ‘ S ‘e ‘p ~him and he felled her with a cuff tOothe face. He s.tarted kicking ier and while s.h~ “.. ‘ ,” gro ‘~h~ tt, I 1 her with a knife. I. I • . i , I find that the Plaintiff’s version of ~vents is more co Istent with cred\bili’ ; i and her witness to be more oredible .han the Dofen . nt.aoq I as.:cept l . . ” ~ ~ .” i, examination, learned counsel for the Defendant Dougan Qt tri ‘ , ” I , ,’,I ‘ , ” :. . ,,!I .t .” c , , “ . l :. ,: ;, • ” I ~ ,I “, ~. ‘7 I . I’ ::j I::·1′:!’ \ ) , : I I ! ,,. . ~( ,.’,I. , ,’-t, ” ; I “ .’ . ‘sc i ~esl .. credibility and veruity of tho Plainti’ f and her witn’ .~’, Al”ougJt sOme , . ‘.. . ! ~ ~~’.. f\ , ! ‘I • f, , in their evidence. I BID ofthe view that in substance , ~Y remained’~, (, The Defendanl wo~d like u:u court to beli1 that I : er the, Plaintiff Ie 1 ~.~vjtllion to ‘. dance and walked a~y,-he simply “”lked 1.ctlind h t an/1 asked her w’ ‘: did 1)ot want to dance with him and she ¥pu in his face. I do not bei :ve that tha~ is wha ithe Defenda!~ did. r • I I. . .'”. : evider’}e that he am inclined to the view that he ,did more ti-aan that, ~ I at:cpt the P,” . . ~ , pulled her pants and started dandl1g hf’hind her and ~h pushtd him. ‘,’ I totally reject lhe Defendu,I’. ~rtion that he and ~ePlairt~ ~’:Ught’ !;, os l!. ~tIdisco, . That the second tight occulred’tvhen the Plain’ff~e1 ~utside and return : t a ~,i:okJ~ bp~f “”If ‘” with three prongs and seare,hed for him. ‘,:, ~, , . ” I . . . . ‘-I . ,f If, as the Defendant conteuds the Plaintiff returned to’ e c:Usco 8CCpmpani , ,p.fteell men. it ~s’ : . I 1 -,’I . not unreasonable to conclude thal he w;)uld have bee tJ~e recipient, of as:, :beating by th~ JI I ::,,: ‘ • I’ .. .’. ,I men, overwhelmed as he would have been by the mer force ofnumbers,’ ‘ ” however Was not’ r .~ I ,~ the case, for according to tbe Defendant, nobody id anything at all. (H rar: aWay. Tite , :r:’! J: Defendant deposed in ~nation,,,~tift ~ mu came around ..e. ~ rani~~de.” ‘i r ‘If;i~lj view the evidence of the Defendant with, grave S lyi”n and I ‘reject it ~o’ e: of th~se’fifteen.’ I II~j;’~£; men intervened. None of these; 6lteen men made any.~PIto siop ibe ~ fi ~. l.accep~ie’, ,!,’7~ evidence ofIv or Williams that when he saw the Plaint\rr on ‘the gro~d~’Ie • ere trying to run. . .’ , . I , “,” ‘i \ I also accept the evidence oflvor.~i\Iiams thj’1 JJ sa~ the ‘litigants ‘~n'” tto!~ ‘J1\t the ~. :1:’:’ :t Defendant on top of the Plaintiff~md he,pushed;ile rief~~~ off the P . : iiifThe J)e(epdant” ;’~t :,;~, ran off with a switch blade ~jfe ‘1 ~is!hand. He saw blQ9(f coi,ling, fro Javf”Y big cut OJ the h)1 y jaw of the Plaintiff and he took he ‘ from the floor and carried her to thergetown Hospital ;i ‘., ;;} • t I • • f ‘. f·’ q ~ The medical report ofDr, Leacock st~ed that,the Plmkrhad “~deo;p I :~~cxteitd\n~fro~, .’:/ ,r! the p;,ma ofthe left£”‘” to the comer ofthe mouth lhal!laceration req~.e~~II) sutmef”·’ I’ . .. I’ ,. .\’ ~ !~ . f’, ‘ ,§’ r t t I • • l, . : tl ,. ;,:~~ :, • :1, ,f • Learned counsel for/the Defendant submitted that a cpt with a Jaii e:is r ‘bly :,.~ straight and;, ‘::P ;:~;:~ t ‘ i’ ,l.j’ . • “II the PJ8intifi’s scar is t:urved. The a(‘c. pled’ evidence i tJ l…t the Deft ldan:; i ri ;t hap.ded ‘and,th~ , ‘ ‘\’ .! • I cut was inflicted wh~n the Plajntitl’ was on the floor 1 lhg on h~bacll\vi ~ th Qef~” 40v~ f t’I’1 her. In my view that would place t1.~ left side gf h I facq Fl~to ~., ,:~lin. in.~~.’;ll~~ struggle there would be no inconsistency between the type o~wound.’s . !. ‘@.dthenatureof”:”il.\l:i1 , ‘Ii” …. I j: :h~i the object used to irltlict in. I :’, 1\ f’t I ‘ (,’ , ‘ .:;; I;~’~:I I ” , . t II’! , !:’ \’t, ‘I ‘j” , “‘ it;’,;:’. “I ” i!, ::’ , ” ‘i, “, ‘” 1 <‘.. “.~Ii t Learned Queen’s Counsol furtte~ slbthiUed iimt if ~l’~ifi~t,~ttle CO’url’, lL’::~~ must rule that it is against public policy to approach the court -for dam : ~. t, is, OQ’9l0Wi that: . \;:. ; ., :I~’ ‘ ~ 1. ;t + • II “ .: . I • I · t , • j , .. ,. .,1 , I ” ::1 ! L I • I I i “ r 1″, .’ i I., ‘. ..~’; ,-there was a fight The•co~ ~so ~Ies thail the d~,ni In his;:o ,frll~m ~,.ainiing damages so the Defenclant t Imself has appro!iChed the burt for damages. ” ; “ , •• I • .’ .i ‘ ‘. , , Leamed Queen’s Counsel also rQf1rn d to the doc~ ~ 9f.e.t turpi c~ \~o oritur actio. In Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 17th ep.ition paragraph l2 ~page 588’ii is s .,” .. moreover when the act consented to constitutes a crime and the PI¥ntitf is ~ partici :’ i muJ;al ~riminal . activity, a civil action ben-teen 1the parties ma~ be b+ed on grounds ofpbli polt;~_~.ex turP.;t t • ‘ , , , ” ,!’ ” i ‘ ‘ ,I • , ‘ • ‘! ‘.t I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proven her case onla balance of ~robab titie ” 1 co~clude ~~t on the 6th ofDecember, 1992 at Uncle rode’s discp a Byrea the Defen c the Plaintitfwith “ , • I ” ‘ a knife causing a deep laceration e?’tending from the eft ear to ~er mouth lnd “viti” a scar on the left side of her face. All of thi,s occUJring as are’ it ‘of the Plaindff ex ., g her legitimfe.’ ,’, right of refusal in relation to a request for a dance SUQh refusal. nlt ‘ going down well with the D:fendant. There is no sub ( ‘ , 1’s counterclaim and ‘ that counterclaim is dismissed .. ‘ ! r” t ; . ; I . .~ t ‘. ‘ . I With respect to general damages, : iearned counsell for thy P~ain~ff Mr. A. .’ “‘illi~,askec’ the I’ , • , I f. “ court to make a minimum gran!. of 51,5.000.00. CounSel also referred,the c urtf’ Cornillac I ·St. causa non oritur actio, 11: is my view that this do¢ ‘ne has. no appljca . iii to tile f~ts an’dl \ hichean opetate • J to thwart the Plaintiffs claim for damagFs, 1 I . . t.;. “,:’ ‘,. Louis. 7 WIR 491. Learned Queen’s Counsel Mr. Dougan slatc;d tbat no evi nee of gain and f ‘ • t • . ‘t • suffering was given and that the Defendant bad not pleaded pain pod suffi ng:.· ! . ” I “ ,. ‘ In British Transport COMmission V (Jourley 1956 AC 185 at 206 Lorr! O()(~lPaJrG sa’ :1% “ ~. : I ,'” I j . , I I , ‘I “In an action’ for personal injuries the damages ate always livid in~’tWo main • . ‘ ‘ I’!” ‘. I • parts. First .mere is wha~ : s referred to as $p…-cial dJun&dcs, w • chI bas to be h ‘. ‘\’ .; specially pl~and provcq … and is generr\}’ capable O;’sub~l~ dr’ .~. :i’ calculation. ‘Secondly there is general dalnagb whitl ~e! law ~lies! md is t,ot’ ~ ,~” ;; specially pl,.,aded. This inclitdes compensati’ ‘n.for Pai:n’and’ . 1M”~t IlItd’,the ( I I ••1 • ” I, ~ . . like ..,·, ‘. • ” :.:,”. ‘. . . t. ,”i, ;J. I. It , ” 1 ” , Pain and suffering th.n “s not an it!m of special damage but one. of th cl s of it.to be , I . r ,• ‘ considered in assessing gen. :ral damages. It ioes not therefore have to be ~ad , • ~ I • ‘ .’ In Cornillac V St. Louis 7 WIR 49;’ th :: consideratio in mind in assessing general damages in personnel inj , ‘ ,. r ‘,’ &~ …. 1 f 1 • (a) The nature and extent, f injuries sustained; . ‘ 1.,(, . ‘”I • ., :’J ; I• , .., f , ., I 7 l #’ I ‘:1’ , (b) The nature and gravity ;)fthe resulting physical di~bi1ityt ‘ r ‘,’ I ,. (c) Pain and suffering; 1 “,\’ : t -,,~’, (d) Loss of amenities; r’ , ~\ (e) The extent to which pecun ary prospects were afTbfted, ; -I !, , I “ I’ ‘ In the instant case the ~Ievant conside,aPons ~OUI~ ~items “a’; and I”c’· ~’d:e.nat~ a(I~’ f extent of injuries sustained and pain and sUfferiiig. .inere was no resulti g p ysi9fil diJ,bility,loss of amenities or evidence that the Plaintiffs pec”ary prospects we ~afti din’any wa~, t . “ With regard to the nature and extent’ of iIljunes’ s ‘tain~d, the medi :~ , ence i’is that th~ Plaintiffhad “a deep laceration extending from the pi Wi ‘Ofthe left ear to’ ~ ai~rof lbe’mouth ‘ : inconceivable that the Plaintiff would not have endu1 pain and suf!’erl~g..Th e is hqwever no . evidence as to its severity, extent or duration,! • I -I I . .~ , • _ 1, ,; I r t In all the circumstanl:eBof the cl.,s~ in~luding J., ~ ct ~t ap~anen”1’~ was lett ~n the , ., ” ‘I I I I • Plaintiff’s face a sum ofSlO,OOO.Or would represent fi r c!ompenSJliqn IX> • ePljff. “ Judgment i. accordingly entered for’ the Plaintiff. . ~ ;;”rcnd.ilifs COUR . . ,JaiM’ i. di~s~ and it is ordered that the Defendant pays the Plaintiff Ii sum 01 S I (‘1,000.0 1generil1l1mpa~: and costs to be taxed ifrot agreed. ,I·, , -, .. , .,• i ~ I j .. • I’ , t’J l ‘ I i f ‘I I I I “ i ‘\’ , t .” (, , ,’I ;. ” I I f -,I I t • ,.. i , r “if .:, .’ -,. r ‘. I · ‘. ‘” !, .., “ “

111.On the 5th dt..y of December 1992 the Plaintiff and the Detl attending a dance ~t Tode’s Disco at B}1’ea. . t , I

3., Soon thereafter Ih’ PIai’ntiff fUrther assauited t.e de~endant i ~~ m ‘ violently on the cl~e, v. ’til a Hairoun pi~t. .Th(~ defe~danire alia!ed’by ” I slapping the Plaintit;r and both parties held ont 0 each bther. In J.e process ‘ the Plaintiff -rore off the defendant’s lon~ sleeve’~yo~shirt. ‘I \ r ..1 1 • ‘ k ~ ‘III’ t ‘ f ‘ • .:f

4.In the fif-ht that ensued, both the Plaintiffand Defendant feU to th : f1rur . . , . I whereupon the lJe.f(:ndant ~kiCiked on the bead by someo e ‘wfImown. , . , I “,:’ , . , I 1 t I., .

5.The PJaintiff went out of t1i.e bui1d~~g ~dreturned in about ve Jpinutes . r” ~ .t . Ir’, ‘ with a broken bottle in her ha!ld and acdompanied by about ttJn m~n. ,. . 6. The PlOintiffunlawfully ‘poinltd ‘ the’ ~~rd~”!I1I:e tow !ds !l the Defendant, who, to pro.ct himself !f’he was entititd to , ked away the Plaintif’s,hand and held on ~it’het ~d~I~~th H’l1rokea bottle so as to a.void being injured by th Plaintiff. ‘. . I, . I , ; . ;. , : ” f’ I ~