Mathoit v Camille & Ors (CS 64/2012) [2017] SCSC 948 (29 October 2017)

Mathoit v Camille & Ors (CS 64/2012) [2017] SCSC 948 (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 liable as it was established that the Third Defendant committed no fault. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent by alighting from the bus in the middle of the highway, and his damages are reduced by 25%.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 948
Parties
Plaintiff: Brian Mathiot; First Defendant: Jason Camille; Second Defendant: Seychelles Public Transport Corporation; Third Defendant: Trevor Rolodziej; Fourth 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 the First and Second Defendants is allowed in part; claim against the Fourth Defendant is 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Mathiot

Plaintiff

Jason Camille

First Defendant

Seychelles Public Transport Corporation

Second Defendant

Trevor Rolodziej

Third Defendant

Laxmanbhai and Company Seychelles (Pty) Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Defendants are liable for injuries suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of a road traffic accident under strict liability and/or negligence.
  2. 2 Whether the Fourth Defendant is vicariously liable for the actions 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 liable as it was established that the Third Defendant committed no fault. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent by alighting from the bus in the middle of the highway, and his damages are reduced by 25%.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the First and Second Defendants is allowed in part; claim against the Fourth Defendant is dismissed.

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants to pay the Plaintiff jointly and severally SR450,262.50 with costs.