(1987)1987September18 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES,Ρ. DEMETRIADES, LORiS JJ 1 1. ANDREAS MAKRIS Appellant-Plaintiff, 2 NEOPHYTOS KYRIACOY, Appellant • Third Party, υ ANDREAS TZIOVANNISAWIDES, Respondent - Defendant. (CivilAppeal No. 6847). Appeal—Findings of fact—In thecircumstancesof thiscasethefindingof the tnal Courtcannot be disturbedasitwas wanrantedby theevidence adducedat the trial. The facts of thiscase sufficiently appear inthejudgment of the Court 5 Appeal dismissedwith costs Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff and third party against the judgment of the District Court of Larnaca (Papadopoulos, P.DX.) dated 13th 10 November, 1984 (Action No. 1567/83) whereby they were found fully liable for an accidentwhich took place on the mainLamaca -Dhekelia road. Ch. Kyriakides, for the appellants. A. Stavrou, for the respondent. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by H.R Mr. Justice Demetriades. DEMETRIADESJ.:Thisisanappealagainst thejudgment ofthe Presidentof the DistrictCourtof Lamaca,by which he found the 47$ 15 1C.L.R. Makrtsv.Kyriakou Demetriades J. appellants, i.e. the plaintiff and the third-party, fully liable for an accident that took place at 2.00 p.m. on the 10thJune, 1983,on the main Lamaca -Dhekelia road. The accident occurred outside the entrance of the installations 5 of the ESSOPetroleum Co.,which are situated onthe right-hand side of the road as one travels from Lamaca to Dhekelia, whilst tanker lorry under Registration No. NE 872, driven by the •respondent, wasnegotiating arightturn in order toenter intothe area of the installations and whilst a taxi, under Registration No. 10 TPD 672, driven by the third-party who was employed by the plaintiff, wasinthe course ofovertaking alineofcars-aconvoywhich wasformed asa resultofthecrawlingpace of the lorry. Itwastheallegation oftheappellantsthattheaccident occurred as a result of the driver of the tanker lorry cutting across the 15 passage of the taxi without first giving sufficient warning of his intention to turn to the right in order to enter into the ESSO installations.Accordingtotheirallegations,thedriverofthetanker lorryneithersignalledwithhistrafficator, notdidhegiveanyother signal of hisintention todo so. 20 On the other hand, it is the allegation of the respondent that when hewasatadistanceofabout200to230feetawayfrom the gate of the installations, he switched on his trafficator, warning traffic following him,that he intended toturntotheright. The trial Court accepted the allegation of the respondent that 25 'vhen he was at a distance from the gate he did signal that he intended torum totheright.Thisfinding issupported notonlyby the evidence of the respondent but, also,bythe evidence of one ofthe defence witnesseswhosaidthat immediatelyafter he heard the bang of the accident he looked and sawthe trafficators of the 30 tanker lorry flashing. Having considered the argument of counsel for the appellant, we findthat the finding of the Court cannot be disturbed asitwas warranted bythe evidence before it. Inthe result, thisappeal failswith costs. 3$ Appealdismissed withcosts. 471