clr/1981/1981_1_632.pdf

0981) 1977 December 3 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P., STAVRINIDES, HADJIANASTASSIOU, JJ.] ANDREAS PARASCHOU KIKA, Appellant-Defendant, v. KYRIAKOS LAZAROU, Respondent-Plaintiff, v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC, Respondent-Third Party. (Civil Appeal No. 5719). Negligence—Road accident—Respondent knocked down by motorvehicle whilst manning a road block—No definite finding by trial Court that driver actually saw the respondent standing in the road—No safe conclusion could hare been reached, regarding the liability of the parties for the accident in question—Retrial 5 before a different bench ordered. The appellant-defendant was adjudged to pay to the respondent-plaintiff the amount of C£5,850, as damages for personal injuries caused to him when he was hit at night-time by a car driven by the appellant. The respondent was at the 10 time carrying out his duties as a national guardsman in the service of the Republic; and was manning a road-block. The crucial issue on which depended the finding as to whether the appellant was solely responsible for the accident in question or, on the contrary, he was not at all responsible, or he was 15 only partially responsible to a limited extent, was whether the appellant actually saw the respondent standing in the road and making to him a signal to stop. The trial Court reached the conclusion "that the defendant either saw the plaintiff or, even if he did not actually see him, he ought to have known 20 of his presence there because he used the road a few hours earlier and according to the evidence the road-block was at that place continuously round the clock". 632 1 CXJL Kika τ. Lazarra and Another Upon appeal by the defendant: • 5 Held, that on the basis of an in thealternative anduncertain finding like theabove nosafeconclusioncouldhave beenreached regarding the liability of the appellant, or any contributory liability of the respondent or any liability of the respondentthird party for not taking all necessary steps to make the road­ block,andthesoldiers manningit",visibleatnight-time;andthat, therefore, a retrial of this case before, necessarily, a differently constituted bench will be ordered. 10 Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered. Appeal. Appeal· by defendant against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Stavrirtakis.P.D.C. and Orphanides, S.D.J.) 15 dated the 28th April, 1977 (Action No. 21/75) by virtue of which he was adjudged to pay to the plaintiff the amount of C£5,850.- as damages for personal injuries caused to him when he was hit at night-time by a car driven by the defendant. X. Syllouris, for the appellant. 20 D. Savvides (Mrs.), for the respondent. Gl. Michaelides, for the respondent-third party. .Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment of the Court. The appellant has appealed against thejudgment of the District 25 Court of Nicosia by virtue of which he was adjudged to pay as the defendant before the trial Court, to the respondent, as the plaintiff, the amount of C£5,850, as damages for personal injuries caused to him when he was hit at night-time by a car driven by the appellant. The respondent was at the time carry30 ing out his duties as a national guardsman in the service of the Republic. The crucial issue on which depends the finding as to whether the appellant was solely responsible for the accident in question or, on the contrary, he was not at all responsible, or he was 35 only partially responsible to a limited extent, is whether the appellant actually saw the respondent standing in the road and making to him a signal to stop. 633 TriantafyUMes P. Kiku τ. Lazaroa and Another