Single mom maxi taxi driver wins accident case

Just after a year of buying a new maxi taxi and driving it herself, Claudette Paul, ended up in an accident which seriously damaged her maxi. She was a single parent and apart from taking care of her children she had to meet an installment of $6,147 each month to pay for the $255,835, maxi which she had bought in March 2001. After the accident which occurred on July 7, 2002, at the intersection of  Centenary Street and the Priority Bus Route, Tunapuna, Paul sued driver Vishnu Maharaj,  of the other vehicle, a pick up-van,  TAE 5586. Her writ of summons dated August 23, 2002, filed by attorney Yaseen Ahmed and Ken Sagar, advocate attorney, claimed damages for negligence, costs, interest and such further reliefs the court might deem fit.

On December 5, 2002, Justice Alan Mendonca ordered that the matter be deemed fit for early trial as a result of the severe financial strain that was put on Paul, a single mother of two children. The trial was heard on September 23, 2003 before Justice Gregory Smith. Paul testified that she was travelling into Port-of-Spain at about 2.30 pm, and was approaching the intersection which is controlled by a traffic light, when the pick-up van drove through the traffic light which was on red and collided with her vehicle, throwing it on the right side of a wall. She called one witness, Amir Ali, who was a passenger in her vehicle.  He had a similar story to tell the Court. Maharaj said that he came to a stop at the traffic light and waited for it to change to green and then proceeded to cross the Bus Route. It was while crossing, he explained, he  just heard a bang. He said he tried to control the vehicle but his pick-up ended up on the southern side of the wall. He said he did not observe the maxi before it hit him.

However, under cross-examination he said: “I was at the intersection when I saw the maxi, nothing was obstructing my view... I can see up to 1,000 feet up Centenary Street.” On September 23, 2003, Justice Smith found the evidence of Ali to be unbiased and true, and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of Paul. As a result, he gave judgement in Paul’s favour, ordering that Maharaj pay Paul’s costs of this action to be taxed in default of an agreement, and that damages be assessed before a Master in Chambers. Maharaj was defended by attorney Bolan Sharma instructed by the law firm of Dipnarine Rampersad & Co.