clr/1982/1982_2_31.pdf

(1982)5 10 Upon appeal against conviction: Held, that the existence of the traffic sign warning drivers that they were approaching a school, the fact that the appellant 15 knew the road, the time at which the accident occurred which was the time when school children go to school, and the presence of the bus opposite the entrance of the school, should have placed the appellant on his guard that children might alight from the bus and attempt to cross the road and appellant should 20 ha\e reasonably apprehended the emerging danger and reduce thespeed of hiscar in anticipation ofsuch danger; that, therefore, the appellant was rightly found guilty of the offence of driving without due care and attention; accordingly the appeal must fail (Trifjarides v. Police

(1968)2 C.L.R. 140 and Chrysostomou 25 v. Police

(1971)2 C.L.R. 176 distinguished). Held, further, that the object of traffic warning signs placed at visible places drawing the attention of drivers to the fact that they are approaching a school, is to put them alert and make them reduce their speed to such limits as to be in a 30 position to avoid a sudden danger which may emerge due to the presence of school children, especially when they drive at such place during school hours; and that if this was not the object, then the existence of such signs would have been meaningless. Appeal dismissed. Cases referred to: Triftarides v. Police

(1968)2 C.L.R. 140; Chrysostomou v. Police

(1971)2 C.L.R. 176. 32 35 2 C.L.R. Panteli v. Police Sawides J. Appeal against conviction. 5 10 Appeal against conviction by Theodoros Antoniou Panteii who was convicted on the 16th October, 1981 at the District Court of Nicosia (Criminal Case No.21400/80)on one count of the offence of driving without due careand attention,contrary to sections 8 and 19 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, 1972 (Law No. 86 of 1972) and was sentenced by S. Nicolaides, D.J. to pay £15.— fine and was further bound over jn the sum of £50.— for one year to keep the traffic Laws. St. Erotokritou (Mrs.), for the appellant. D. Papadopoullou (Mrs.), for the respondents. A. Loizou J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Sawides. 15 SAWIDES J.: This is an appeal against conviction under ss. 8 and 19 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Law, No. 86/72 for driving a motor vehicle on a public road without due care and attention. The facts of the case are summarized in the judgment of the trial Judge and they are briefly as follows:20 25 30 35 Theaccused onthe 30th October, 1980 at 7.20 a.m. was driving his car along Makarios 1ΓΙ Avenue in Latsia \illage at a speed of 30 m.p.h. As he was proceeding in front of the Elementary School of the vllage, which was on his right hand side, and he was in the process of overtaking a stationary bus which was on the left hand side of the road, he knocked down and injured a five-year old girl whilst she was running to cross the road in front of the stationary bus from lift to right. There were about 18 passengers in the bus, some of whom were school children going to tluir ^chool, and it is for this reason that the busstopped on theleft hand cide, opposite theentranceof the school. The road was a straight one, 25 ft. wide with 5 ft. usable berms on each side and with very good visibility. At a reasonable distance from the entrance of the school, in the direction from which the accused was coming, there was a traffic sign visible to drivers approaching the school, warning them of the existence of the school. The accused when confronted with the girl made no effort to stop as, according to his evidence before the trial Court, the distance between his car and the girl at 33 Sa^vides J. PanteU v. Police

(1982)the timewhen the girl emerged in front of him,wasvery short. Such distance was given by the police officer who investigated the case as being 36 feet. The learned trial Judge reached the conclusion that the accused, in the circumstances of the case, was driving without 5 due care and attention and found him guilty of the charge. In so doing, he had this to say: "The question of negligence is always a factual one depending on the circumstances of each particular case and in the present case the fact that the accused knew the road, 10 the time being 7.20 a.m. when aschool children are going to school, schools were open, the existence of the warning signatthesideoftheroadthat he(theaccused)wasapproaching a school where young children might emerge on the road. The presence of the bus outside the school it was 15 reasonable for accused to anticipate that children may alight from the bus to go to school and dash across the road or emerge in front of the bus. Accused's speed at about 30milesper hour, even though within the permissible limits,in these circumstances should 20 have been reduced to a more reasonable speed in otder to give him better manoeuvrability and ability to stop at shorter distance in case of any eventuality". Learned counsel for the appellant in her argument in support of the grounds of appeal, made reference to the cases of Trifta- 25 rides v. The Police

(1968)2 C.L.R. 140 andChrysostomou v. The Police

(1971)2C.L.R. 176andsubmitted that inthelight of the judgments in the said cases, the appeal of the accused inthepresentcaseshould beallowedandhisconviction quashed. In Triftarides case, the accident occurred whilst the appellant 30 was overtaking a stationary car in the outskirts of a village and a girl suddenly emerged in front of his taxi, coming from behind the stationary car. In the circumstances of the case his conviction for driving without due care and attention was quashed on appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the case 35 was a borderline case and in acquitting the accused, had this to say at page 145 (per Vassiliades, P.):"The conviction was rested on the fact that, in the circumstances, the driver did not reduce his speed at 30 miles 34 2 C.L.R. Panlell v. Police Sawides J. an hour, apprehending that a child might come suddenly across the road, from behind the stationary car. In my opinion there was nothing which should reasonably cause such apprehension in the circumstances". 5 In Chrysostomou case the appellant whilst driving his car within a village at a speed of 15milesper hour and was in the process of overtaking a stationary bus from which passengers were alighting, hit a girl who emerged from behind the front of the bus and attempted to cross the road in front of the car JO driven by the appellant. The conviction of the appellant for driving without due care and attention was quashed on appeal because, as stated bythe Court at page 178(per Triantafyllides, P.):15 20 "Bearing in mind alt relevant circumstances, including the slow ipeed at whichtheAppellant was driving and that heimmediatelytried to stopwhen he sawthugirl emerging suddenly in front of him,wefindthat it wasnocwatranted to find the Appellant guilty of driving without due care and attention and, theiefore, the conviction has to b^ quashed and the sertence imposed on the Appellant is set aside". Both the above cases ars distinguishable from the present case. Inthepresentcase,asveryrightlyobservedbythelearned trial Judge, the ex'Stencc of the traffic s*gn-warning drivers that 25 theywereapproaching aschool,thefact that theappellant knew the road, the time at which the accident occurred which was the time when school children go to school, the presence of the bus opposite the entrance of the school, should have placed the appellant on his guard thai children might alight from the 30 bus and attempt to cross the road and appellant should have reasonably apprehended the emerging danger and reduce the speed of his car in anticipation of such danger. The object of traffic warning signs placed at visible places drawing the attention of drivers to the fact that they are approaching a 35 school, is to put them alert and make them reduce their speed to such limits as to be in a position to avoid a sudden danger which may emerge due to the presence of school children. especially when they drive at such place during school hours. 35 Sawides J. Panteli v. Police

(1982)Ifthiswasnot theobject, thentheexistenceofsuch signswould have been meaningless. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 36