Fahie and Benjamin lose lawsuit, ordered to pay bank’s legal fees
- Friday, February 8th, 2013 at 12:09 PM
First District representative Andrew Fahie. *BVI News File Photo
First District representative Andrew Fahie and resident Petra Benjamin have lost their case against the National Bank of the Virgin islands in which they claimed damages for personal injuries resulting from an armed robbery that took place at the bank on August 15, 2007.
The court ruled that both Fahie and Benjamin should pay the bank’s legal costs of  $7500.
Both Fahie and Benjamin who were shot in the leg by the robbers sustained injuries, loss and damage. They also sought interest on the award of damages and costs.
They claimed that they were customers of the bank and were conducting banking business when three masked men, brandishing guns, entered the premises and began demanding money from the bank staff.
Fahie and Benjamin further claimed that their injuries, loss and damage were occasioned by the negligence of the bank.
According to them, the bank failed to take reasonable care to ensure that they would have been reasonably safe in visiting its premises to transact business.
The two also accused the bank of failing to provide adequate security personnel on the premises, and also failing to provide armed security personnel capable of dealing with a robbery and other criminal activities – Â particularly given the spate of robberies in the territory.
In its defense filed on February 2009, the bank denied Fahie and Benjamin’s particulars of negligence, and stated that it took all reasonable precautions to ensure that there was adequate security.
The bank also stated that it was not a lack of adequate security which resulted in the injury of both Fahie and Benjamin, but rather the unforeseeable intervention of a third party which broke the chain of causation in this matter.
The  financial institution was represented by Paul Webster QC of O’Neal Webster
Fahie and Benjamin gave evidence
Fahie gave evidence saying - among other things – that when he entered the bank, there was one unarmed security guard at the door who appeared to be employed more for the purpose of opening the door for customers than providing effective security.
He also stated that three  masked men with guns entered the bank and began demanding money from the tellers. Fahie testified that the security fled the facility and did not return.
He said no attempt was made by the security guard or any other employee of the bank to intervene or protect the customers of the bank during the course of the robbery.
Fahie further stated that, during the robbery, one of the gunmen discharged his firearm and shot him in his left ankle. As a result of the injury, Fahie had to wear a cast below the knee for a couple of months.
He said he was in great pain and discomfort throughout the entire period, adding that he incurred medical expenses amounting to more than $5000.
Benjamin, in her evidence to the court, repeated almost verbatim, the statement given by Fahie.
She also stated that she sustained injuries when one of the gunmen discharged his firearm, resulting in her being shot in the left foot. When examined at Peebles Hospital, a surgeon told her that the bullet had caused a fracture to one of her toes.
Benjamin further testified that medical expenses amounted to close to $1000, as well as the cost of employing a house keeper/baby sitter for $700.
Meanwhile, Managing Director of Vanguard Security Services Brian Penn told the court that the security officer at the bank was not armed because the general practice in the territory does not allow for security services providers to issue a gun to their personnel.
He was however in possession of the only weapon which is not restricted in the territory – an extendable baton.
Penn also stated that the security measures implemented by the bank were sufficient based on the level of risk which was assessed at the time. It took into account the type of society and the security measures appropriate in the circumstances.
Court’s judgement
The Court said, in its judgement, there can be no doubt that the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Fahie and Benjamin was the criminal act of three armed men.
It was accepted that, where banking businesses cater to the public, they have a duty to protect invitees when they know or have reason to know that criminal acts have occurred or are likely to occur.
The court therefore said, in assessing the bank’s culpability, it must consider the evidence of its knowledge of prior criminal incidents.
It said it cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the intervening criminals act – in this case, the robbery of the bank by three masked gunmen – was a forseeable consequence of the alleged breach of  duty to protect Fahie and Benjamin.
Also, both Fahie and Benjamin have not satisfied the court that, had the bank taken the purported precautionary measures, it would have averted their injuries and loss.
The court said, while there can be no doubt that both Fahie and Benjamin sustained injuries during the course of the robbery, they failed to prove on a balance of probabilities, that a negligent breach of the bank in fact resulted in the injuries.
It further stated that both Fahie and Benjamin have simply not done enough to discharge their burden, and certainly not to the requisite standard.
The court ordered both Fahie and Benjamin – represented by Terrance Neale of Mc Todman and Company – to pay the bank’s legal fees which totaled $7500.
Copyright 2013 BVI News, Alliance News Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
39 Comments
Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users. We reserve the right to screen, refuse to post, remove or edit user-generated content at any time and for any or no reason in our absolute and sole discretion without prior notice, although we have no duty to do so or to monitor any public forum. All comments posted on BVINews.com reflect the views and opinions of the commentators and not that of the management and staff. Click here for our full comment/user policy/ agreement.
Ahyo taking this thing fo ah joke? Wait!
Bottom line, at the end of the day it is all about “MONEY” these two tried a thing and it did not work lol Nothing beats a trial but a failure. What jokers!!
Sorry for your pain though!
Couldnt help but laugh @ this “Fahie testified that the security fled the facility and did not return.” MY joke of the day LMAO……..Every man for his own lol
OMG!! you people missed the boat. Hon. Fahie and Benjamin simply stated what their cost amounted to. This has nothing to do with what they planned to sue the Bank for. The Bank would have had to take out a loan to pay both of them. Of course he can always ask Claud for some of that $700,000 dollars which is still unaccounted for.
They would only be able to sue for harm caused to them, we use the British common law system not the US system where you can bring any compensation claim,therefore the figures stated is what they are claiming for.
they could also sue for pain and suffering which could rise to high amounts and interest at a daily rate for the length of time it took for the claim to be dealt with but that would be at the discretion of the judge.
If you going to sue, you have to set out from the beginning what you are suing for. If you won your case and didnt have pain and suffering as one of your claims, you are not going to get it. You must also set out pacific figures under each claim that you are suing for, the discretion of the judge will come into play for example, lets say your total suit is for 100,000. Even if you won your case, that does not mean you are going to get the whole 100,000.
You seem to have some knowledge of the law but you are mixing up the situation where interest comes into play. Interrest will come into play where the defendant owes you money for a period of time (example: sitution where someone borrow money from you and you take them to court; to get back the money). If you won your case, the court will award you cost (you have to include cost in your claim from the beginning)which mean the other side will pay for your legal representation and also damages. you do not have to pay interest at a daily rate for the length of time it took for the claimm to be deal with in court, it does not work that way.
Why all these run-on sentences Law Student? Is the use of periods and semi-colons illegal? Your poor English grammar blemishes your otherwise good arguments.
Purchase an English Grammar and Composition Book.
To Law Student: What are “pacific figures”?
@Your Proffessor, I am making an argument, not writing an essay. This is not a formal setting, so I dont need to be formal, I think everyone understands the point that I am making. So please spin around and come back again. @Robert what I mean is for example, the exact amount Fahie sued for is 5,080, while Benjmin exact amount was 1662.16. Your claim must set out exact figures which you are suing for.
@Law student: From the explanaion which you provided to Robert, the word should be specific versus pacific.
@my two cents: Thanks for correcting my type-O, I didnt realise I made it. Yes I meant to say specific.
really?
but why couldn’t their lawyer advise them that this claim was unfounded? Does he not understand how the law of negligence works? Did he not properly read the bank’s defence submission before going to court? What previous case was he using as a precedent?…I would loooove to know! Then again, maybe the lawyer advised them that they had no case but the clients still wanted to pursue their claim anyway.
Also, instead of suing the bank, maybe be more effective as a minister and raise this issue with the legislation by proposing new laws for the provision of armed/undercover security at banks?
Good riddance!
The Superette which Andrew owns where people go day in day out an where there has been robbery and murder, I have yet to see one security guard so the nerve of Andrew. It is always and only about him. Scratch the surae and it is always only about him.
Ralph got to be laughing. Now you all see why the man fraid to resign.
negligence 101
I am not surprised, to prove negligence three elements must be answered in the affirmative; duty of care; breach of duty and causation. The first element would be yes; the bank owed them a duty of care, the next question is whether the bank breached it’s duty, the answer is no. To prove negligence all three elements must be answered in the affirmative. If the second question is answered in the negative then there is no need to ask the third question. I am surprised they brought up armed guards; I would like to know when did it become common practice for security guards in the BVI to be armed?They should have gotten a lawyer.
Well said. The thing I don’t understand are why a claim for such a relatively small sum was brought in the High Court. That amount is sufficiently small that it should have been within the Magistrate’s small claims jurisdiction. The total legal costs will easily outstrip the amount of the claim even though it was struck out before trial. It leaves me wondering if the claim was really brought for a collateral motive.
I spoke to another law student friend of mines about the High Court issue. He said it was his understanding that claims of about $10,000 and higher should be brought to the High Court and that the case brought against the bank was weak. Benjamine had claim of 1700, while Fahie had claim of amounting to more than 5000. It would have been nice to know the exact figues for fahie since he said amounting to more than 5000. The article also stated that ‘Benjamin, in her evidence to the court, repeated almost verbatim, the statement given by Fahie’. This shows that some couching was done.
@Law student:
Good reasoning. But do learn to spell and capitalise.
Examples of errors:
mines;fahie;Benjamine;couching.
fahie was playing politics to help the woman now it backfire. pay the piper greedy fools. sue the criminal who shot you and was convicted not the damn bank who was a victim as well. foool fool fooooooooooooool.
There are other negligent acts/behaviors performed by businesses, government and individuals that the laws of the territory should allowed one to sue for, but not this nonsense. This is wasting the court’s time at a cost to the hardworking taxpayers. Change the laws for a security guard to be armed and then you just may have a case. And if the guard really ran off, he would be a fool to stick around after shots were fired knowing that he’s not armed; bullets don’t decide who/what they will hit.
I totally agree with the judge’s decision. How can Hon. Fahie sue the bank for not protecting its customers from three mask criminals who have been robbing the BVI business for some time? I am wondering if the mask men had decided to invade Mr. Fahie’s home and rob and shoot him in his ankle who would he sue, his family for not providing him protection?. This is utter rubbish and Mr. Fahie knows that.
EXACTLY! If anything, he should sue the armed robbers… Sometimes people don’t think, and that’s a scary thing to say considering he’s a political leader. Boy, are we in trouble!
same problem in VG…….ALL THE GUARDS DO IS OPEN THE DOOR FOR U BS
They must be crazy if they actually thought they would win that.
Great idea, lets sue businessmen instead of criminals avoiding the whole nasty issue of catching those reponsible
LMAO!!!
meehhn, i was just going ask Andrew for a lil financial assistance to pay my credit card bill; guess now i suck salt
you going suck more than that if you really brokes
well homosexuality in the BVI is decriminalized so if you need to suck more than salt well let the sucking go on; at least your bills paid….lol
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lord send help cause I going tek een!! You come een clean daddy
Fahie hard up for money now. He lose the government now he lose he little money. Ha
HAHAHAHAAH AH GLAD!
i never seen or heard so much stupidness yet
this is an ndp plot
NDP doesn’t control the courts. It’s funny how they wanted the bank to have security for them but they are against security for the kids at the High School. Stupid stupid move I wonder which bush lawyer advised them on this nonsense? Schuups. They should be locked up for a weekend for wasting the court and government time.
you sound so stupid!!!!!!!!!!!
To VIP…take a good look at ur comment..think on it..now ask urself one question..does that make sense???
Post a Comment