clr/1988/1988_1_425.pdf

(1988)instance, and also before us today on appeal and thesubject of its cross-appeal which inthe course of thehearing was withdrawn, is that of the liability of the two drivers involved in a traffic accident that occurred on the 27th March 1983 on the main NicosiaTroodos road, in which two vehicles were involved, a Mercedes saloon car under Registration No. FJ 101 and amotorlorry under Registration No. FR021. The facts of the case as emanating from the evidence and the respective version of the two sides are set out in theJudgment of the learned President and are briefly these. 5 10 Appellant No. 1was driving thesaid motor-lorry inthedirection of Troodos inthecourse of hisemployment with appellants No. 2, who were the owners of same. At about 6.00 p.m. and between the 10th and 11th milestone, itcame into a violent collision at a point which isabout one foot tothe rightof thedividing lineof the 15 road, that ι on the side of the oncoming saloon car which was driven by the deceased for whose estate and dependants action No. 2830/84 was instituted. The version of the respondents supported by two witnesses, was thatthedeceased was driving the saloon-car in question on the proper side of the road, when 20 suddenly the oncoming lorry turned right, got into their path and after colliding with the car of the deceased, itproceeded intothe fields and stopped ata distance of about 250 ft away. On the other hand, the version of the appellant was that the motor-carcametowards himandhehootedhishornbutthedriver 25 of theothercartook nonotice of itso hehimself applied his brakes and veered to his right-hand side there being no other vehicle coming from the opposite direction at the time, the deceased however stopped his vehicle on his side to the road, hence the collision. The learned President, after evaluating the testimony of the various witnesses anddeciding upontheircredibility proceeded to view the real evidence in its proper perspective and inthe light of the importancethatshould be attachedtoitas repeatedly stated by this Court in many of itsjudgments, concluded that the appellant 35 was to blame by 60% and the deceased, who isnow represented by his personal representatives intheseproceedings was to blame by 40%. It was, as was rightly so observed by the Learned President, a difficult case to resolve and of course it is more difficult for us on 40 426 30 1 C.L.R. loannou ft An. v. Chrysostomou & Another A. Lo&ou P. appeal who do nothave thebenefit of listening tothetestimonyof witnesses and watching their demeanour in the witness box but who have to evaluate the situation from the transcribed record of the case and indeed the argument of counsel of either side. 5 Inthe light of the totality of the circumstances and the findings of the learned President and the principles governing the interference by this Court with such findings and the conclusions drawn thereonbased onthecredibility of witnessesasaccepted by the trial Court,we have come to the conclusion that we are not ΙΟ justified in interfering with the apportionmentof liability as found by thelearned President. For all the above reasons the appeal and of course the cross appeal which hasalready been withdrawn aredismissed andinthe circumstancestherewillbe noorderastocostseitherof the appeal 15 or the cross appeal. Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 427