JUDGMENT

Moses Susayan J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Sessions Court delivered on 11 October 2023, which dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from an alleged highway accident on 20 July 2018. Upon careful evaluation of the record, submissions, and reasons given, this Court finds no basis to disturb the findings below. While the occurrence of an accident involving the plaintiff's car is not in dispute, liability in tort is not automatic. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant breached a duty of care. That burden was not discharged. Critical factual gaps, such as the failure to prove what object was struck or how it came to be there render the appeal without merit.

Plaintiff's Contentions

[2] The plaintiff alleged that while driving his car (Ferrari, registration No AHX 87) at about 10.45pm, he collided with a foreign object lying on the overtaking lane of the expressway. He claims this object caused damage to his vehicle and asserts that the defendant, the highway concessionaire, was negligent in failing to maintain the road and remove the hazard. To support his claim, the plaintiff relied on his own testimony and other motorists (SP4 and SP5) who allegedly encountered the same object. The plaintiff further argued that he had called PLUS-line (the defendant's emergency response) and that no aid was rendered.

Defendant's Contentions

[3] The defendant denied liability, maintaining that no object was observed at the relevant location and time. Relying on evidence from its patrol officers (SD1 and SD2), the defendant showed that multiple patrols were conducted on the night in question, and no obstruction or accident was observed. The defendant also submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove any negligence, identify the alleged object, and produce critical supporting evidence, particularly call logs, photographs, or forensic assessments of the object.

The Sessions Court 's Finding

[4] This Court notes the Sessions Court 's meticulous reasoning in rejecting the plaintiff's claim. The Sessions Court rightly emphasised several key weaknesses in the plaintiff's case.

[5] At the heart of the plaintiff's case lies an alleged "foreign object" on the highway that allegedly caused the accident. However, neither the plaintiff nor any of his witnesses identified what this object was. There were no photographs of it. The plaintiff could not say whether it was a part of another vehicle, road debris, or otherwise. Without establishing the nature of the hazard, no causal link to the defendant's duty of care can be drawn.

[6] During cross-examination, SP1, the Investigating Officer admitted that he had not visited the scene, had not seen the damaged vehicles, and had not interviewed any parties involved. His report was based solely on second-hand police reports, and his witness statement was prepared for him. The Sessions Court was justified in finding this evidence wholly unreliable.

[7] SP4 and SP5, both supposedly independent witnesses, also gave inconsistent testimony. SP4's police report suggested he witnessed other vehicles striking the same object, yet in Court , he admitted he did not witness such collisions. SP5 also could not confirm what he struck or whether others hit the same item.

[8] Although the plaintiff claimed to have called PLUSline, he failed to tender any call logs or attempt to subpoena them from his mobile provider. While asserting that the defendant should have produced the logs from PLUSline's Traffic Monitoring Centre, it was not the defendant's burden to disprove the plaintiff's claim. Section 102 of the Evidence Act 1950 clearly places the burden of proof on the plaintiff. The Sessions Court correctly concluded that this failure was fatal to the plaintiff's credibility.

[9] The Court accepts the Sessions Court 's finding that SD1 and SD2 gave credible and consistent evidence during the trial. Their patrol record