Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A businessman from San Juan has won his negligence lawsuit against the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) over damage to his business caused by a faulty sewer pipeline almost four years ago.
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad yesterday upheld Matthew Edwards’ claim against the public utility in a judgment delivered a little over a week after he presided over a trial.
In his case, Edwards, who operates a store selling pirated DVDs, computer parts, toys and ice cream at a rented building in San Juan, claimed that the issue with WASA’s sewer pipeline arose in late October 2021.
He claimed that he noticed water and sewerage overflowing from the toilet at the property.
Edwards initially believed that the toilet was clogged and sought to rectify it using a rubber plunger.
His landlord came to his assistance after his attempts to stop the flow failed.
He claimed that they eventually cut the PVC pipe connecting the building’s sewer system to the WASA sewer pipeline, which runs underground along the Eastern Main Road.
Edwards claimed that his business suffered significant damage as it was flooded with sewerage before he and his landlord were able to implement the temporary solution.
Several reports were made to WASA, which took 45 days to rectify the issue with its pipeline.
Edwards claimed that he lost almost $60,000 in stock and spent almost $3,000 cleaning the business.
He also claimed that he lost over $20,000 in profits as he was forced to close his business until the issue with the sewer pipeline was addressed by WASA.
In determining the case, Justice Seepersad noted that the authority has a statutory duty over the sewer main and Edwards was not precluded from bringing such a lawsuit by the provisions of the Water and Sewerage Act.
“The Court is resolute in its view that the statute is not intended to exclude common law to liability for the damage caused by WASA for a failure to maintain and/or repair its sewer mains,” he said.
Stating that WASA has a duty of care to property owners affected by its installations, Justice Seepersad pointed out that it admitted that the sewer main was very old and past its lifespan.
Justice Seepersad expressed concern over WASA’s failure to replace the sewer main based on its admissions over its state.
“The Court is filled with a feeling of dread as this main may be a ticking sewer bomb and presents a clear and present danger,” he said, as the judge questioned the condition of similar mains in the country’s cities.
“The Defendant should therefore, as a matter of urgency, consider the engagement of a comprehensive review of the nation’s sewer systems and aged mains should be quickly replaced so as to avert an impending health and environment crisis,” he added.
He also called on WASA to take a more proactive approach.
“WASA cannot be an acronym for wavering, apathetic, supine or atrophic instead it must stand for an approach which is wilful, attentive, strategic, and alert,” he said.
Justice Seepersad also rejected WASA’s claim that its delay in addressing the issue was due to its staff being preoccupied with a major project to reroute water main pipelines in Beetham Gardens.
“If such a position were to be accepted then this Republic should be classified as a failed State,” he said.
Although Justice Seepersad ruled that WASA was negligent and committed a nuisance by failing to maintain the sewer main, he did not immediately assess the compensation to be paid to Edwards.
The compensation is to be assessed by a High Court Master at a later date.
Edwards was represented by Javier Forrester, while Kirk Bengochea represented WASA.
