Wife's Final Say

Wives usually have the "last say" about things, and Kevin Ackerman hopes his wife’s last say will tip the Scales of Justice in his favour.

He and his wife were stuck in early morning traffic, when Mr Ackerman realised he could escape the congestion by turning left into a side street a short distance ahead.

It meant passing a security vehicle in front of him, on the left.

As he made his left-turn, the driver of the security vehicle, now to Mr Ackerman’s right, got the same idea, and also swung left – into Mr Ackerman’s car.

Mr Ackerman correctly took both the security company, SVB Services, and the driver, Bennet Mothusiemang, to court, in line with the principle that if an employee negligently causes damage whilst on duty, both the employer and employee are jointly liable for the damage.

Mr Mothusiemang said: “I think he has taken me to court, because he couldn’t come right with the company.”

Mr Mothusiemang was adamant that his left indicator was on, but Mr Ackerman said it was not.

In the heat of the dispute, Mr Mothusiemang blurted: “He was wrong, because he should have waited for the traffic to move on, instead of passing me on the left.”

Asked why he had turned left if there was a car on his left, Mr Mothusiemang said: “I was about to turn left, and the next thing he was there.”

The Commissioner said everything hinged on whether Mothusiemang’s left indicator was on or not – it was the one's word against the other.

The Commissioner was about to throw Mr Ackerman’s case out, as unproven, when I prompted Mr Ackerman to ask for a ruling of “absolution from the instance” - which he did - rather than to have his case dismissed.

An “absolution” ruling left the door open for Mr Ackerman to pursue his claim once more – this time with his wife as his witness, which would turn the one-word-against-the-other situation into two against one.

Some weeks later he informed me that his case had come up again, before a different Commissioner.

This time, Mr Ackerman had his wife with him and, after hearing her testimony, the Comissioner ruled in his favour.

An interesting question arose as a result of this case: May a wife testify in favour of her husband (or vice versa) - would the testifying wife not be regarded as biased in her husband's favour?

The answer: Yes, he or she may testify in a civil claim, but one spouse may not be compelled to testify against the other, in criminal proceedings.