A 30-year-old woman injured in a collision with a police car two years ago has won a civil judgment against the Royal Cayman Islands Police and the Attorney General.

Grand Court Justice Charles Quin, in a ruling issued on 1 June, ordered that Police Constable Pierre St. Jacques is responsible for “the loss, injury and damage” sustained by Latoya Barrett “by reason of PC St. Jacques’ negligence.”

The exact amount of costs government insurers will have to pay has not been determined.

Ms Barrett was driving west on Crewe Road in a Toyota Yaris on 11 July, 2008, when a Chevrolet Impala driven by Constable St. Jacques and travelling east on the same road crossed onto Ms Barrett’s side of the road and crashed into her vehicle.

Attorneys for Ms Barrett claimed the accident was the result of negligence on the part of the constable, who they said was driving too fast and failed to keep a proper look out on the road.

Constable St. Jacques denied negligence, maintaining that the accident was an “agony-of-the-moment situation” brought on when he was forced to swerve on to the wrong side of the road to avoid hitting a cyclist.

According to Ms Barrett’s evidence, she was on her way to George Town about 3.25am in the left-hand lane, travelling about 20-30 mph. She said she was wearing her seat belt and that the road was clear. She also stated that there was good visibility and that her headlights were on.

Upon reaching the vicinity of Tropical Gardens, Rosedale apartments, Ms Barrett testified that she heard the screeching of car tyres, a sound she imitated on the witness stand.

She said when she saw the police car coming toward her sideways, on her side of the road, she hit her brakes and pulled to the left, but the front of her car collided with the side of the police car.

Ms Barrett said Constable St. Jacques got out of his car and came over to ask if she was OK. She testified that the officer first said he did not know what happened, then said he lost control of the vehicle, and added that he thought he saw a “bicycle man”. Ms Barrett said she did not see anyone riding a bike on the road.

Constable St. Jacques began his testimony by stating that he was a traffic officer with notable periods of specialised driver training, on and off a specialised track. He also had driver training when he arrived in the Cayman Islands. Before his appointment with the RCIPS, he was a police officer in Quebec, Canada, for 10 years.

In his description of events, Constable St. Jacques said at the moment he began to negotiate the curve near Rosedale apartments, he saw a cyclist coming from the right side of the road, heading to his left. He said the cyclist was “straight in front” of him and that the curve had made it impossible to see him before, adding that since he and the cyclist were travelling left, he was forced to go right to avoid hitting the person.

He said when he saw Ms Barrett’s car, he turned even harder right. The constable said he was driving about 25-30 mph, not any faster, and certainly not 53 mph, which is close to the “critical speed” of the corner. The constable added that he was travelling at a perfect speed to negotiate the bend, but the second vehicle proved “too much for him to handle”, even at 30 mph.

Expert testimony by Jeffrey Armstrong for Ms Barrett and Pierre Bellemare for the defence was in agreement on several things, including the length and radius of the curve, the banking of the road, and the width of each lane.

However, other evidence was not as clear cut, particularly concerning tyre marks left in the road by the constable’s car and whether those showed that the car had “yawed” since the police car was travelling in excess of the speed required to negotiate the corner without problems.

Rear tires of a car normally track outside the front wheels, but in a yaw the opposite occurs.

Mr. Bellemare concluded that the officer was not travelling faster than the “critical speed” of the bend, but Mr. Armstrong disputed this, saying the marks clearly showed that the constable had been driving faster than the critical speed at which the corner could be negotiated. He said the marks were consistent with being out of control, and if the officer were travelling at a reasonable speed, he would have had more than enough time to correct this.

In his ruling, Justice Quin concluded that there was no cyclist on the road at the time of the accident, further supported by Constable St. Jacques’ remarks to Ms Barrett that he did not know how the accident happened and that he admitted losing control of his car.

Justice Quin found that Constable St. Jacques “was travelling far in excess of the speed limit -- somewhere between 48 and 58mph and was not in control of his vehicle.”

Accordingly, the judge said, he found the constable guilty of negligence “in, and about, the management and driving of the Chevrolet police car”.

Ms Barrett was represented by Richard Lynagh QC and Christopher McDuff of Thorp Alberga. Constable St. Jacques’ attorney was Kirsten Houghton of Campbells.

In May Daniel Bennet won a lawsuit against the Cayman Islands Attorney General and Cayman Islands Government in connection with an incident in December 2003, in which his motorcycle collided with a police car during a chase, leaving the then 15-year-old with a severely injured leg and broken ribs. He was awarded $40,000 as an interim payment while the full amount of damages was being determined.