- Case indexes > Environmental
- Case indexes > Environmental > Flora and fauna
- Case indexes > Environmental > Flora and fauna > Plants, forests and forestry (flora)
- Case indexes > Environmental > Human exploitation of the environment
- Case indexes > Environmental > Human exploitation of the environment > Land use
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Remedies
- Case indexes > Commercial > Civil Remedies > Costs > Attribution of Costs
- Case indexes > Commercial > Company Law
- Case indexes > Commercial > Company Law > Company directors
- Case indexes > Commercial > Company Law > Company directors > Liability of Company Directors
- Case summary
This was an action for damages for assault and battery that led to the removal of one of the plaintiff’s eye; following a beating by the defendant’s guards when the plaintiff was caught stealing on the defendant’s property. The plaintiff also prayed for costs of the action.
It was common cause that the plaintiff was cutting down trees for firewood without permission at the defendant’s estate; and that the plaintiff ran away from the defendant’s agents. The plaintiff averred that one of the defendant’s agents appeared in front of him and threw his baton stick at him, hitting and injuring his eye. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s version of facts and averred that the plaintiff stumbled and fell onto his shovel, thereby injuring himself.
The court, therefore, had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the damages sought.
The court held that in a civil case like this one, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove his case on balance of probabilities. The plaintiff argued that he satisfied this requirement, as the defendant’s witnesses contradicted themselves. The court, however, noted that all of the defendant’s witnesses concurred that they were not carrying baton sticks on the material day and that the plaintiff did not challenge this.
Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the injuries he sustained were caused by the defendant’s agents. The plaintiff’s action, therefore, failed.
This document is 4.8 MB. Do you want to load it?