Motorist's to pay hospital for failing to pave way for ambulance

A motorist’s quest to seek compensation from a hospital following an ambulance accident has flopped twice.

Maurice Otieno Owiti sued Eagle Health and Clinic, seeking compensation following an accident with the hospital’s ambulance on June 5, 2023.

Otieno stated that he was driving along the Nairobi Expressway when the ambulance allegedly collided with his vehicle.

He asked the court to award special damages, loss of user, costs of the suit, and interest.

However, the Small Claims Court turned the tables, finding that he ought to have paved the way for the ambulance, as it had a siren on and hazards to indicate an emergency situation.

The lower court ordered him to pay the hospital Sh 778,769 after finding that he was 100 percent liable for the accident.

Aggrieved, he moved to the High Court.

In his case before Justice Teresiah Ouya, he argued that the lower court had erred by finding that he was liable.

He also faulted the adjudicator for finding that he purposely refused to make way for the ambulance and shifting the burden of explaining that he was not reckless on him.

Otieno insisted that the ambulance driver was liable for the accident. He said that the emergency vehicle failed to maintain a safe distance as required by the traffic law.

He stated that the lower court was also in error when it concluded that he changed lanes and suddenly joined the lane occupied by the ambulance without indicating.

Otieno was armed with a photograph to show that the ambulance rammed on his vehicles middle section.

He argued that this was inconsistent with the court’s finding that his car hit the ambulance.

In its response, Eagle Health argued that the lower court was right to find that Otieno was at fault. It asserted that his case was defective as the appeal from a Small Claims Court ought to be on ‘matters of law’ only.

In her judgment, Justice Ouya said that the contention between the two was whether an ambulance is exempt from observing traffic rules and if it is not bound to keep safe distance from other motorists.

She observed that the lower court had indicated that Otieno switched lanes and got to the ambulance’s one in a bid to avoid colliding with an object.

She also noted that it was concluded that Otieno should have observed Rule 83 of the Traffic Rules by giving way to the ambulance whose siren, hazard lights and full lights were all on or blazing at the time.

According to the judge, the lower court was right, as it weighed the evidence from both sides and anchored it on law.

She upheld the judgment and ordered Otieno to pay the cost of the case.

“Based on the foregoing, this Court finds and holds that the present appeal is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the respondent herein, being the successful party in the appeal, is also awarded the costs at the trial Court,” decreed Justice Ouya.