William & Anor v Abel & Anor (CS 112/2017) [2021] SCSC 866 (26 March 2021)

William & Anor v Abel & Anor (CS 112/2017) [2021] SCSC 866 (26 March 2021)

The 1st defendant was negligent in driving, causing the accident and injuries to the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable as the 1st defendant was not proven to be acting outside the scope of employment. The quantum claimed was exaggerated; damages are awarded based on medical evidence and local jurisprudence.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 866
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Fatima William; 2nd Plaintiff: Kerla Hoareau; 1st Defendant: Alvin Abel; 2nd Defendant: Pilgrim Security Services
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Case Number
CS 112/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Plaint allowed against both defendants jointly and severally; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Negligence, Damages, Road Traffic Accident
Source Language
English
Tort Law Employment Law Vicarious Liability Negligence Damages Road Traffic Accident

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatima William

1st Plaintiff

Kerla Hoareau

2nd Plaintiff

Alvin Abel

1st Defendant

Pilgrim Security Services

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant drove the vehicle negligently causing the accident and injuries to the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of the 1st defendant
  3. 3 Quantum of damages payable to the plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant was negligent in driving, causing the accident and injuries to the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant, as employer, is vicariously liable as the 1st defendant was not proven to be acting outside the scope of employment. The quantum claimed was exaggerated; damages are awarded based on medical evidence and local jurisprudence.

Court Disposition

Plaint allowed against both defendants jointly and severally; damages and costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • 1st plaintiff awarded SCR 200,000 for corporal damages.
  • 2nd plaintiff awarded SCR 50,000 for corporal damages.