motorcyclist was injured.

And the decision has saved Woofer's owners Norman and Judith Ingemann from having to pay $12,000 in damages.

Shawnette Dion Smith claimed the accident happened on Friday, October 27, at 9.25 p.m., when she was riding her Yamaha motorcycle along Cut Road, St.

George's.

As a result of the collision Smith suffered a fracture of her left cheekbone, a cut above the left eyebrow, cuts to her cheek, left eye, hand wrist and left shoulder. She has permanent scars above her left eyebrow and her eyelid tissue.

In Supreme Court, Puisne Judge the Hon. Mrs. Justice Wade read out the evidence. Mrs. Justice Wade said: "Miss Smith testified that as she rode along her jacket button became undone and she took her hand off the accelerator to enable her to fasten the button.

"After fastening her button, she rode off again when approximately 10 feet away she noticed a black Labrador type dog coming out of a gate.

"She continued her path because she felt that the dog would continue running across the street. However the dog stopped, sat in the road and began to scratch its right side.

"Then she eased off the gas and tried to brake but she collided with the dog.

Upon impact she went over the handle-bar and landed on her face with part of her body still resting on the bike. The bike was resting on top of the dog.

"She got up and picked up the bike. The dog ran easterly to the sidewalk. He made a whimpering noise and limped.'' Later, Smith was taken to the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital by ambulance where her wounds were cleaned and stitched.

She claimed she later saw the dog by the side of the road as she travelled in a taxi.

It was learned the Ingemanns' dog, Woofer, had been treated at the time of the accident.

In court, both Smith and the Ingemanns called veterinary experts. The Plaintiff called Dr. Paul Hensen and the defendants called Dr. Maureen Ware.

Mrs. Justice Wade believed both experts were working under a handicap and relying on Smith's version of events.

She said: "However both experts agree that the accident Miss Smith described could have caused the injuries to the defendant's dog.

"The only difference is the degree of possibility or probability they place upon it. And we cannot rule out the possibility of the dog being hit by another vehicle after being hit by Miss Smith.

"There is a clear conflict between the opinions of the veterinarians. I prefer the evidence of Dr. Ware. She had the additional advantage of having dealt with the medical facts.

"I am more inclined to the view that it is significantly more probable that Woofer's injuries were not caused by an auxiliary cycle.'' The Judge noted Smith's failure to mention the second sighting of the dog until some time after the incident and rejected it as evidence.

Mrs. Justice Wade said: "As regards the actual point of impact, it is clear that there are some inconsistencies between the Plaintiff's version of events given in her testimony and in her statement recorded by Police.

"In considering the whole of the evidence before me and the issues raised and the probabilities, I find it impossible to say that Miss Smith has established that it was the Defendants' dog Woofer which caused the accident.

"There is no direct evidence of which dog collided with the Plaintiff. And the circumstantial evidence has left me in doubt.

"Therefore Miss Smith fails in her claim as she has not proved that Woofer caused her accident.'' She assessed that the damages if the case had gone the other way would have been $12,000.