clr/1975/1975_2_121.pdf

[TRlANTAFYLLIDESt P., A. LoiZOU, MALACHTOS, JJ.J ANDREAS PITSILLIDES, „1 9 7 5 Sept. 10 — ANDREAS Appellant, PITSILLIDES v v. - ΓΗΕ POLICE THE POLICE, Respondents. (Criminal Appeal No. 3633). Road Traffic—Careless driving—Section 8 of the Motor Ve­ hicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law 86/72)—Run­ ning down case—Pedestrian knocked down when he suddenly stepped backwards whilst standing near parked $ car and whilst driver was driving past at a distance of about two metres from said car—Driver stopping and shouting as soon as he saw pedestrian coming towards him—Driver's conduct not inconsistent with that of a prudent driver—Failure to sound his horn did not suf10 fice in order to say that it was proved that he was driving without due care and attention. 15 20 25 30 Whilst the appellant was driving his car he noticed a car parked to his left side and a man talking to its driver. As the appellant was driving past, at a distance of about two metres from the parked car, the said man stepped suddenly backwards and collided with the left side of the vehicle of the appellant. Held, taking into account that the appellant had no indication that the complainant was about to step backwards and that the appellant drove past the stationary car and the complainant leaving the sufficient clearance of about two metres, as well as that he stopped and shouted as soon as he saw the complainant coming to­ wards him, we are of the view that the appellant's conduct was not inconsistent with that of a prudent driver (see Simpson v. Peat [1952] 1 All E.R. 447 at p. 449) and that his failure to sound his horn did not suffice in order to say that it was proved that he was driving without due care and attention. Appeal allowed. 121 1t76 Sept. tO ANDREAS PITSILLIDES V. THE POLICE Cases referred to: Simpson v. Peat [1952] 1 All E.R. 447, at p. 449, per Lord Goddard, C.J. Appeal against conviction. Appeal against conviction by Andreas Pitsillides who 5 was convicted on the 9th June, 1975 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No. 23048/74) on one count of the offence of driving without due care and attention contrary to section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law 86/72) and was 10 bound over, by A. Ioannides, D.J., in the sum of £50.for one year to keep the Traffic Laws and Regulations and he was further ordered to pay £9.- costs. St. Erotocritou (Mrs.), for the appellant. Gl. Michaelides, for the respondents. '15 The judgment of the Court was delivered by:TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P. : The appellant was convicted of the offence of driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, contrary to section 8 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law 86/72). 20 The facts of the case are that on the 27th June, 1974, as the appellant was driving a pick-up, No. HB 813, in a street in Nicosia, he noticed a car parked to his left side and a man talking to its driver. As the appellant was driving past, at a distance of about two metres 25 from the parked car, the said man stepped suddenly backwards and collided with the left side of the vehicle of the appellant. There is no suggestion, nor was it so found by the trial judge, that the appellant had had any prior indica- 30 tion, by any behaviour on the part of the complainant or otherwise, that he was about to step backwards; also, the trial judge accepted the version of the appellant that as soon as he saw the complainant coming towards his car he called out to him and stopped; but, nevertheless, 35 the collision was not averted. The trial judge found, however, the appellant guilty of the offence in question because he did not sound his 122 horn before driving past the complainant or when he saw him stepping backwards. In Simpson v. Peat [1952] 1 All E.R. 447, 449, Lord Goddard C.J. said: "If, on the other hand, the circum5 stances show that his conduct was not inconsistent with that of a reasonably prudent driver, the case has not been proved"; and, taking into account that the appellant had no indication that the complainant was about to step backwards and that the appellant drove past the 10 stationary car and the complainant leaving the sufficient clearance of about two metres, as well as that he stopped and shouted as soon as he saw the complainant coming towards him, we are of the view that the appellant's conduct was not inconsistent with that of a prudent driver 15 and that his failure to sound his horn did not suffice in order to say that it was proved that he was driving without due care and attention. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant is set aside. Appeal allowed. 20 123 1976 Sept. 10 ANDREAS PITSILLIDES V. THE POUCE