Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A man has lost a lawsuit over a serious car accident involving fallen telecommunications cables.
In a judgment delivered last week, High Court Judge Westmin James dismissed Anthony Williams’ negligence claim against Telecommunications Services of Trinidad and Tobago (TSTT).
The lawsuit arose from an accident along Erin Road, Charmain Village, Buenos Ayres, at about 4.15 am on September 28, 2020.
Williams’ Nissan Sunny became entangled in a fallen TSTT cable, causing the vehicle to overturn. He suffered significant injuries, including pain to his neck, shoulder and lower back, as well as impaired vision in his right eye.
Williams alleged that TSTT was negligent in failing to maintain its cables, warn motorists of the hazard and keep its infrastructure in a safe condition for road users.
He sought $57,720 in special damages for medical expenses, vehicle rental costs and mechanical repairs.
TSTT denied liability, contending that the cable came down after another vehicle struck a utility pole. The company said it dispatched a crew to address the issue within hours of receiving a report from residents.
The company also argued that Williams contributed to the accident by speeding and failing to change course after seeing the obstruction.
While Justice James found Williams to be an honest witness who genuinely suffered an unfortunate accident, he ruled that Williams was unable to provide evidence of how long the cable had been on the roadway before the collision.
The judge also noted that Williams could not establish how long the hazard remained unaddressed, as there was no evidence of when it had first been reported to TSTT.
“The law has consistently recognised that negligence cannot be inferred simply because an accident occurred,” Justice James said.
“The claimant bears the burden of proving that the dangerous condition resulted from some failure on the part of the defendant rather than from an independent intervening event,” he added.
Justice James found, on a balance of probabilities, that the utility pole had been damaged by an unknown third party shortly before Williams’ accident.
He also ruled that there was no basis to conclude TSTT’s inspection regime was deficient, as no evidence was presented of inadequate inspection schedules, poor maintenance practices or previous complaints about the utility pole or cable.
“There is therefore no evidential basis upon which the court could conclude that reasonable inspection would have identified the danger before the accident,” Justice James said.
Referring to the company’s response after the accident, the judge said: “While an earlier response would undoubtedly have been preferable, negligence cannot arise from failing to respond before the defendant knew or reasonably ought to have known of the hazard.”
Despite dismissing the claim, Justice James declined to order Williams to pay TSTT’s legal costs, noting that the lawsuit was neither speculative nor frivolous.
“There is no dispute that he was involved in a serious accident caused by contact with the defendant’s fallen telecommunications cable,” he said.
“His claim ultimately failed not because the accident did not occur, but because the evidence did not establish that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazard before the accident,” he added.
Williams was represented by Gareth Caesar and Jacqueline Mohammed, while TSTT was represented by Alvia Mootoo.
