Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Moses v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGNC 25; N1159 (22 July 1993)

N1159

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the National Court of Justice]

WS 79 OF 1991

WARO MOSES

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen: Woods J.
17, 18 June, 22 July 1993

Negligence - motor vehicle accident - identification of vehicle.

D O'Connor for the Plaintiff
A Kandakasi for the Defendant

22 July 1993

Woods J. The Plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries he received when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the Enga Highway between Laiagam and Wabag on 6 March 1990.

The Plaintiff states he was at Sirunke looking for a PMV to go to Wabag when a Toyota land cruiser utility came along and offered him and others a ride. It appears that they paid a fare for the ride. Shortly after boarding the vehicle the driver failed to negotiate a bend and ran off the road and overturned. the Plaintiff states he was rendered unconscious in the accident and regained consciousness later in hospital. The Plaintiff is unable to identify the vehicle apart from it being a white Toyota land cruiser utility. He did not know the registration nor the name of the driver.

Another person David Ipata gave evidence of being with the plaintiff and getting onto the vehicle and the vehicle running off the road and overturning. He is unable to provide any more details of the vehicle than the plaintiff namely that it was a white Toyota land cruiser utility. Both witnesses agree that there were about 10 people on the back.

A Policeman Senior Constable Kalo gave evidence that on the afternoon of Tuesday 6 March 1990 he was on duty at Wabag Police Station when a man called Biliki Balakau rushed in and said he was driving a vehicle along the road from Laiagam to Wabag when he had an accident and as a result a young boy broke his leg. He produced his driving licence and gave the registration number of the vehicle. The policeman had no transport so was unable to attend the scene that day. The following day he attended the scene which he identified by seeing skid marks and broken glass - the vehicle was no longer there. The policeman then interviewed the plaintiff in the Sopas Hospital. The policeman never saw the vehicle but certain documents were produced to him some days later supposedly for the registration and insurance. The policeman never saw the driver again. He did suspect him of having been drinking when he came to the police station on the day of the alleged accident.

To take an action against the Motor Vehicles Insurance Trust for damages for injuries received in a motor vehicle accident it is necessary to prove three things, first there must be an accident, then there must be a vehicle properly identified or if not so identified proper search and enquiry should be made, then there must be injuries or loss of life because of negligence. So has the Plaintiff satisfied these three prerequisites. There appears to be do doubt that he was injured but has he satisfactorily identified the vehicle which caused these injuries. All the Plaintiff says is he was given a lift in a white Toyota land cruiser, he did not know the owner, nor the driver nor the registration. His father later took some documents to the Police station purporting to come from the subject vehicle which identifies a vehicle registered in the name of the Enga Research Management Company. A Policeman gave evidence of a man called Biliki Balakau rushing in and reporting an accident involving a vehicle registered number AFZ 587 but giving no papers to prove this registration. That person did not give any evidence in court. That person apparently rushed out from the police station and has never been seen again. The policeman never saw the vehicle.

Is this sufficient evidence to mount a claim against the Trust. There was nothing from Mr Balakau to identify him with the papers later brought in referring to the Enga Research Management Company. The policeman was never able to confirm that the vehicle referred to in the documents of registration was the subject vehicle, he only reported what he was told. He never confirmed anything with any independent evidence.

This is all just not good enough, it is too casual. The policeman never saw the vehicle again, nobody ever saw the vehicle again. There is no one identifying the vehicle referred to in the Insurance papers as the vehicle on which the plaintiff was a passenger and which went off the road and caused the plaintiff's injuries.

I must therefore dismiss the claim.