1 C.L.R. 1988 November 3 (A LOIZOU Ρ DEMETRIADES PIKIS J J ) 1 GEORGHIOS IOANNIDES, 2 CHAMBOS IOANNOU, Appellants-Defendants ν ANDREAS KYRIACOU, Respondent-Plaintiff (CivilAppeal No 6851) Evidence — Real evidence — Importance of, m road traffic accident cases 5 Evidence — Conflict between testimony and statement to police — Failure of trial Court to deal specifically with the matter — Notwithstanding such a failurethere is, in the circumstances of this case no room for interference The appellant (defendant) appeals against the finding that he was solely to blame for the collision between his car and that of respondent(plaintiff) thatoccurredontheoldKoshi — Lymbia road 10 15 on By thescene of theaccidentthetarmacwas very narrow, no more than 13 ft wide, whereas theberm on either side of the road was at a level lower than the asphalted part of it The Court accepted that the impact occurred 4 ft from the left edge of thetarmac,viewedfrom thedirectionof the respondent,that was due tothefact thattheappellant lost controlof hisvehicle inthe process of re-emerging on the asphalted part of the road Broken glassscattered prominently by thepointindicated by therespondent as the spot of thecollision was found toprovide corroboration of his story Moreover the tyre marks and their direction, viewed in conjunction with the point of impact, serve to indicate the route followed by thevehicle of the appellant before the accident The verdict of thetnal Courtis challenged as unsustainable on the ground, inter alia, of failure on the part of the Court to direct itself adequately respecting theconflict ordiscrepancy between aspects of 639 loannldes v. Kyriacou
(1988)the testimony of respondent and his statement to the Police regardingtriecircumstancesaffecting thestoppageofhiscarafterthe accident. Held, dismissingthe appeal:
(1)Although the trialCourt didnot direct itself specifically to a discernible conflict between respondent' stestimonyandhisstatementtothePolicewithregard tothecircumstancesunderwhichhiscarwasbroughttoastandstill, thesummingupoftheevidencewasonthewholeadequateleaving noroomforinterference inthisrespect. 5
(2)Inmakingitsfindings,thetrialCourtattached,asitwasperfectly .10 entitledtodo,considerableimportancetotherealevidence.Asoften acknowledged by this Court, the value of real evidence in road accidentsasapointertowhathadhappened ishardtooverstate. Appealdismissedwithcosts. Casesreferredto: 15 Haloumiasv. Police
(1970)2C.L.R.154; Meshiou v. Eleftheriou
(1982)1 C.L.R.486; AdamisandAnotherv. Eracleous
(1982)1 C.L.R. 746; CharalambousandAnotherv. Kaifas
(1986)1 C.L.R. 278; YeklimaLtd. v. A.P.LanitisandAnother
(1987)1 C.L.R.614. 2 Appeal. Appeal by defendant No. 1against thejudgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Demetriou, Ag. P.D.C.) dated the 20th November, 1984(ActionNo.4470/82) wherebyhewas adjudged topay to theplaintiff the sum of£2,200.-asdamages forpersonal 25 injuriesand damagecausetohiscarasaresultofatraffic accident. P.loannides withE.Kekkou (Miss)for the appellant. N. Ioannou (Mrs) withPh. Valiantes,for the respondent. Cur.adv. vult. A.LOIZOU P.:The judgment of the Court willbe delivered by 30 Pikis, J. PIKISJ.: The appellant (defendant) appeals against the finding that he was solely to blame for the collision between his car and that of respondent (plaintiff) that occurred on the old Koshi Lymbia road and should, onthat account, bearsoleresponsibility 35 640 0 1 C.L.R. loannldea v.Kyrlacou PUdsJ. for the consequences.The accident occurred on an uphill stretch of the road by a left bend as one travels towards Lymbia, the directionfollowed bytherespondent. Bythesceneoftheaccident thetarmacwasverynarrow,nomorethan 13ft.wide,whereasthe 5 berm on either side of the road was at a level lower than the asphalted partofit.Dnvingalongsucharoadcouldnothave been but a hazardous businessrequiring extraordinary care on the part of usersof the road. Before theaccidenttherespondentwasfollowingalorrytanker, 10 a fact which alongside with the existence of the bend limited the visibilityoftherespondenttothesceneimmediatelyaheadofhim. The visibilityof the appellant who wascoming from the opposite direction waslikewise restricted.The accident occurred when the vehicle ofthe appellant passed the lorrytankerand thedriverwas 15 engaged intheprocessofsteeringthecarbackonthetarmac.The tyremarksleftontheedge ofthetarmarcprovidedevidenceofthe direction of his car and furnished an indication of what followed thereafter. Conflicting versions were advanced by the two sides respecting the circumstances leading to the accident and those 20 that followed. After reviewing the rival contentions and contrasting the evidence given in support thereto with the findings made by the investigating officer at the scene of the accident, the trial Court found for the respondent. The Court accepted that the impact 25 occurred 4 ft. from the left edge of the tarmac, viewed from the direction of the respondent; while the respondent was steadily driving forward towards his destination. The appellant on the otherhand lostcontrolofhisvehicleintheprocessof re-emerging on the asphalted part ofthe road, a fact that caused hisvehicle to 30 collide with that of the respondent producing the consequences ' forwhichhewasadjudged tobearresponsibility.Thepositionand direction oftyrepressuresleft bythecarofappellantcoupled withthe pointidentified bythePoliceConstable whoinvestigatedtheaccident asthe point of impact, were found toprovide confirmation of the 35 testimony of the respondent regarding the circumstances of the accident. Broken glass scattered prominently by the point indicated bytherespondent asthespotofcollisionwerefound to provide corroboration ot hisstory. Moreover the tyre marks and their direction, viewed in conjunction with the point of impact, 40 servetoindicatetheroutefollowed bytiievehicleofthe appellant 641 PiIds J. loannides v. Kyriacou
(1988)before the accident. The trial Court rejected the testimony of the appellant and his witnessestotheeffect thattheaccident occurred to the right of the centre of the road {viewedfrom the direction of respondent). It was noted that the respondent appeared at first, when theplan was showi tohim,toagree with thepointidentified 5 by the respondent as the point of impact. The verdict of the tric.1 Court is challenged as unsustainable mainly on two grounds: (
- a)Failure on the part of the Court to direct itself adequately respecting the conflict or discrepancy between aspects of the 10 testimony of respondent and hisstatement tothePolice regarding the circumstances affecting the stoppage of his car after the accident. (
- b)Misappreciation of the facts relevant to the position of scattered glass. In relation to the presence of broken glass at the scene of the accident, the finding of the Court cannot be faulted for lack of support by the evidence. There was evidence before the Court that suggested that whereas broken glass was to be found over a wider area, the bulk of itwas tobe found by the point of impact. 20 Reverting to the first complaint of appellant, the crux of the matter is that although the trial Court did not direct itself specifically to a discernible conflict between his testimony and his statement to the Police with regard to the circumstances under which his car was brought to a standstill, the summing up of the 25 evidence was on the whole adequate leaving no room for interference in this respect either. It is evident that in making its findings, the Court attached, as it was perfectly entitled to do, considerable importance to the real evidence; evidence of a kind that often provides a safe guide for the reconstruction of the 30 circumstances surrounding an accident that are often dimmed in the mind of the drivers by the confusion that the dramatic experience of an accident produces in their mind. As often acknowledged by the Court, the value of real evidence in road accidents as a pointertowhat had happened ishard tooverstate*. 35 * See, interalia, GeorghiosProdmmou Haloumiasν Police
(1970)2 C.L.R. 154;Meshiouv. .Eleftheriou
(1982)1 CL.R. 486- Adamis & Another v. Eracleous
(1982)1 C.L.R 746: Charalambous&Another v. Kaitas
(1986)1C.L.R 278, TeklimaLtd.v.A P.LanitisLtd and Another
(1987)1 CL.R. 614 642 15 1 C.L.R. loannldes v.Kyriacou Plkis J. As well as providing a yardstick for testing the reliability of testimony, real eviaence isequally usetul as a guide to assess the accuracy of conflicting versions advanced in relation to road accidents. 5 The appeal isdismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed withcosts. • I! 643