Search court decisions

…He brought this action against the Defendant claiming that the Defendant was negligent and that it was such negligence which occasioned the accident.…

…At first the Defendant denied liability for the negligence but on the 30th October, 1991, the parties agreed that the Plaintiff was himself 10% negligent while the Defendant was 90% negligent.…

…the contract between the plaintiff and first defendant, the latter finally claims that there was a condition exempting the defendant from liability for any loss or damage of any kind resulting wholly or partly from the negligence…

…the contract between the first defendant and second defendant was admitted with the object no doubt of showing that the second defendant was the agent or servant of the first defendant, the exemption clause covered any negligence…

…were being driven by their respective drivers as the servants or agents of their respective owners in the course of their employment and/or within the scope of their authority and that the said accident was caused by the negligence…

…were being driven by their respective drivers as the servants or agents of their respective owners in the course of their employment and/or within the scope of their authority and that the said accident was caused by the negligence…

…The appellant sued his employer, Coastal Bottlers Limited, the respondent, for damages for his injuries incurred in an accident at their premises which he claimed were the consequence of its negligence and or breach of contract…