Labiche and Others v Laporte (22 2000) [2005] SCSC 32 (4 May 2005)

Labiche and Others v Laporte (22 2000) [2005] SCSC 32 (4 May 2005)

The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of fault under Article 1383(2) as his defence was a complete denial and did not plead or prove that the damage was solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The evidence established that the defendant was involved in the accident causing the death, and is therefore liable in damages.

Citation
[2005] SCSC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: Francoise Labiche; Plaintiff: Wilven Elizabeth; Defendant: Mr Brian Laporte
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
4 May 2005
Case Number
22 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Delict, Motor Vehicle Accidents, Presumption of Fault, Damages, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francoise Labiche

Plaintiff

Wilven Elizabeth

Plaintiff

Mr Brian Laporte

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for the death of Louis Guy Elizabeth under Article 1383(2) of the Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of fault under Article 1383(2) is rebutted
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for material and moral loss

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to rebut the presumption of fault under Article 1383(2) as his defence was a complete denial and did not plead or prove that the damage was solely due to the negligence of the deceased. The evidence established that the defendant was involved in the accident causing the death, and is therefore liable in damages.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs

Orders

  • Defendant to pay 1st plaintiff Rs. 40,000 (Rs. 30,000 for loss of financial support, Rs. 10,000 for moral damages)
  • Defendant to pay 3rd plaintiff Rs. 5,000 for moral damages