1 C.L.R 1988 May 24 {A LOIZOUΡ SAWIDES KOURRIS JJ) Y1ANGOS SOCRATOUS Appellant-Plaintiff ν 1 GEORGHIOSLOIZOU 2 ANDREASIOANNOU Respondents-Defendants (CivilAppeal No 7181) 5 Negligence—Road traffic collision—Defence of inevitable accident— Burden of proof on the defendant—How such burden is discharged—Motor cyclist sliding and falling in front of trailer— Driver of trailerswerving to the right in order to avoid hitting the motor cyclist—Collision withoncoming vehicle driven by appellant from the opposite direction—On these facts driver of trailer established defence ofinevitableaccident The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the hereinabove headnote 10 Appeal dismissed withcosts Cases referred to Ritchie's CarHireLtd ν Bailey
(1958)108LJ 348, TheMerchant Pnnce[\S92] Ρ 179 Appeal 15 Appeal by plaintiff againstthejudgment of theDistnct Court of Limassol (Korfiotis, DJ )dated the21st November, 1985 (Action No 3856/83)wherebyhisaction fordamages forpersonal injunes • uffered as a resultof a traffic accident wasdismissed Chr. Pavlou, for the appellant. 20 Π Pelaghias, for the respondents 299 Socratous v. Loizou & Another
(1988)A LOIZOU Ρ gave thefollowing judgment of theCourt Thisis an appeal from the judgment of a Judge of the District Court of Limassol by which he dismissed the action of the appellant for damages for personal injunes suffered by him and the damage caused to his vehicle as a result of a collision on his vehicle with 5 that of respondent1 The facts as found by thelearned trialJudge are briefly these On the 16th February 1987 at about 11 30 a m the appellant was dnving along FranklinRoosevelt Avenue inLimassol his motor car under Registration No FM594 At thesame time respondent 10 No 1was driving histrailerunderRegistration No MP57 from the opposite direction At thesame timeon theberm on the left-hand side of the trailer there was amotor-cyclist who mhis effort to get on totheasphalted roadslided andfell ontheasphaltatadistance of two tothreefeet from theberm Onthese facts respondentNo 15 1 was found not guilty of negligent dnving RespondentNo 1in his effort toavoid hittingthesaid motor-cyclist applied brakes and swerved to the right with the result of colliding with thecar of the appellant The learned trial Judge in arriving at his findings relied mainly on the version of the appellant himself so there is nothing 20 more tobe said except whetherinsuch circumstancesrespondent No 1 could be found negligent or whether the collision was the result of inevitable accident which is a defence toanaction based on negligence open toadefendant who hastoestablish thatthere was nonegligence on his partinwhich event hewillthen succeed 25 in defeating theclaim Theburden of proof isinsuch acase onthe defendant Inevitable accident has been descnbed as thatwhich the party charged with theoffence couldnotpossiblypreventby exercise of ordinary care, cautionand skill ^0 In Ritchie's Car Hire Ltd, ν Bailey [1958] 108 LJ 348, the defence of inevitable accident succeeded where the defendant driver had established thathiscollision with a kerbside tree inthe early hours of the morning had been caused by his swerving to avoid striking a cat which had suddenly confronted him 35 unforeseeably, as itrun out on tothe road from his near side We have no difficulty having listened carefully to learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the records of the proceedings in coming to the conclusion that the defence of inevitable accidenthas been established both on thefacts related 40 300 1 C.L.R S o c r a t o u s v. Loizou & Another A.Lolzou P. by the appellant himself and accepted by the learned trial Judge andon the restof the circumstances of thecase.The respondent discharged the burden that was on him. He had either to show whatwasthe causeoftheaccidentand thatthe resultofthat cause 5 was inevitable or he should have shown all the possible causes, one ortheother,ofwhichproduced theeffect andthatwith regard to everyone of these possible causes the result could not have been avoided. (TheMerchant Prince[18921P. 179) We therefore find no reason to interfere with the judgment of 10 thelearned trialJudge and theappeal failsandishereby dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed withcosts. 301