NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Three public servants who were robbed at gunpoint at a voter’s card distribution center ahead of the 2017 general election and sued the government for negligence were unsuccessful.
The Supreme Court determined there was no “breach of duty” by the government and the actions of the armed robber “cannot be attributed to them”.
Erica Williams and Kizzy Maurice, both of whom worked for the National Insurance Board (NIB), and Typhany Clarke, a Ministry of Works employee, were named as the plaintiffs.
The women sought damages against the government, NIB, the Parliamentary Registration Department and the attorney general for failing to keep them safe.
According to court documents, a lone gunman who covered his face with a towel robbed the women at gunpoint at the St Barnabas Church Hall on March 21, 2017.
At the time, they were seconded to the Parliamentary Registration Department to assist with the handling and distribution of voter’s cards.
The voter’s cards boxes had already been transported for the day.
The women claimed that after turning away a gentleman who came looking for one of their colleagues, a fair-skinned gentleman entered through the door before they could lock it.
He forced the women to the ground and demanded cash.
According to the plaintiffs, a police officer was provided from the Royal Bahamas Police Force as security between 8am and 4pm, and a RBDF marine between 4pm until the time they left, but both officers left sometime after 4pm on the day in question.
In her testimony, Williams said she initially thought the incident was a hoax and that the gun was not real, but complied along with her coworker Maurice, who was four months pregnant, and laid down on the floor and handed over their money.
According to her testimony, the gunman apologizes as he left saying “sorry he had to rob them, but he needed the money”.
The women claimed to have been traumatized and stated without continued psychotherapy, they would have suffered from post-traumatic stress.
In her ruling, Supreme Court Justice Diane Stewart removed the government and Parliamentary Registration Department as parties, noting they were not juridical entities.
The judge said she sympathized with what the plaintiffs experienced.
However, she determined that the NIB nor the attorney general breached their duty to provide or maintain a safe working environment and cannot be held responsible for the absence of the police or defense force officers “as they were unaware of the same”.
The judge said the defendants also could not be held responsible for the “unforeseeable event that occurred as a result of their absence”.
“There was no breach of duty by the defendants, therefore the actions of the armed robber cannot be attributed to them,” read the ruling.
“The experience of the plaintiffs was an unfortunate one, especially the trauma that ensued as a result.
“However, as there was no causal link between the actions of the armed robber and the second or fourth defendant, the damages sustained were not as a result of any breach of the defendants’ duty, whether statutorily or at common law.”
Stewart said the attorney general provided officers for their security, thus ensuring that a safe environment of work as reasonably practicable was provided.
She also said it was a sub-issue as to whether the attorney general could be held responsible for the actions of the police officers and their failure to remain stationed for the duration of the shift.
The judge said there was no evidence to suggest the plaintiffs made the attorney general aware of the absence of the officers.
She said she was satisfied that there was no general duty owed by the police to “individual members”.
The judge awarded costs to the defendants.
The defendants said NIB did not owe the women a duty of care as Williams was “moonlighting after hours and Ms Maurice was seconded to the department” and neither institution operated nor controlled the church.
The defendants also said the department and RBPF were responsible for the safety of the church and the Health and Safety Act did not impose a duty of an employer to prevent an employee from being harmed by the “willful criminal acts of a third party after working hours and away from the workplace”.
The attorney general said that duty of care claimed was not a duty generally imposed by law and in the circumstances was not owed to the plaintiffs.
The attorney general also said the jobs of the plaintiffs were to issue votes cards and as there was no handling of cash, there could be no anticipation of “contentious violent behavior”.
He said police officers were asked to assist to ensure the “integrity of the process”.
The judge said she was satisfied that there was no general duty owed by police individual members of the public who might suffer injury through criminal activities of others “unless it can be showed that there was a failure to apprehend a criminal in circumstances which resulted in an exceptional risk greater than the normal risk”.
She said while the RBPF was not named as a party in the proceedings, it has been decided in numerous cases that it would be “too high of a duty” to expect them to prevent a crime or be held liable for not preventing one.
