Mathiot v Camille & Ors (CS 64/2012) [2017] SCSC 947 (29 October 2017)

Mathiot v Camille & Ors (CS 64/2012) [2017] SCSC 947 (29 October 2017)

The First and Second Defendants are strictly liable under Article 1383(2) for the Plaintiff's injuries as they failed to rebut the presumption of fault and did not establish that the accident was due to an extraneous event outside their control. The Fourth Defendant is not vicariously liable as the Third Defendant committed no fault. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 25% for alighting in the middle of the highway. Damages are awarded accordingly.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 947
Parties
Plaintiff: Brian Mathiot; 1st Defendant: Jason Camille; 2nd Defendant: Seychelles Public Transport Corporation; 3rd Defendant: Trevor Rolodziej; 4th Defendant: Laxmanbhai and Company Seychelles (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
29 October 2017
Case Number
CS 64/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against First and Second Defendants partially allowed; claim against Fourth Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Road Traffic Accident, Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Strict Liability, Contributory Negligence, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Law Civil Liability Road Traffic Accident Negligence Vicarious Liability Strict Liability Contributory Negligence Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Mathiot

Plaintiff

Jason Camille

1st Defendant

Seychelles Public Transport Corporation

2nd Defendant

Trevor Rolodziej

3rd Defendant

Laxmanbhai and Company Seychelles (Pty) Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Defendants are strictly liable for injuries suffered by the Plaintiff under Article 1383(2) of the Civil Code.
  2. 2 Whether the Fourth Defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the Third Defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and to what extent.

Ratio Decidendi

The First and Second Defendants are strictly liable under Article 1383(2) for the Plaintiff's injuries as they failed to rebut the presumption of fault and did not establish that the accident was due to an extraneous event outside their control. The Fourth Defendant is not vicariously liable as the Third Defendant committed no fault. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 25% for alighting in the middle of the highway. Damages are awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against First and Second Defendants partially allowed; claim against Fourth Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants to pay Plaintiff jointly and severally SR450,262.50 with costs.
  • Claim against Fourth Defendant dismissed.