Supreme Court
Action No. 24 of 1982
17th March, 1983.
Rajasingham, J.

Mr. Dean O. Barrow for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Michael C. Young for the Defendant.

Motor Vehicle Accident - Defendant intending to turn left but failing to put the indicators on his vehicle to signal this intention - Defendant merely moving over to his right - Driver of Plaintiff's vehicle presuming Defendant was pulling up to stop - Driver of Plaintiff's car then moving over to his left to overtake resulting in traffic accident - Driver of Plaintiff's motor vehicle overtaking at an intersection - Effect of Regulation 114(2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations - Whether the Regulation provides for a mandatory prohibition to overtake at an intersection - Special damages for damage caused to Plaintiff's vehicle.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff's claim is for damages arising from an accident which occurred on the 23rd of June,1982 at St. Thomas Street in Belize City, and which involved Chevrolet car No. BZ-C 1636 driven by the Plaintiff's son and Ford Bronco No. BZ-C 513 driven by the Defendant. The facts are as follows: - the Plaintiff's son was following the Defendant's vehicle along St. Thomas Street when the Defendant started out to turn into 3rd Street which was on his left and thus involved turning across St. Thomas Street. The Plaintiff's son says the Defendant did not signal his intention to turn but slowed down and moved over to his right. The Plaintiff's son says he thought the Defendant was pulling up and so he moved over to his left to overtake and when he was within half a car length of the Defendant, the Defendant started turning left. His car then collided with the Defendant's vehicle. There is no evidence of damage to the Defendant's vehicle but the Plaintiff's vehicle was damaged. The right front fender and lights on the Plaintiff's car were damaged when they came into contact with the Defendant's left rear bumper. The Defendant says he had looked in his rearview mirror and, having ascertained that the Plaintiff's car was a fair distance behind, signalled his intention to turn by using his indicator and then commenced turning as he thought it was safe to do so. He admitted that he may have miscalculated the distance at which Plaintiff's car was following him and it proved not to have been, in fact, safe enough to turn. He says his indicators were in working condition and the Plaintiff's son admits that when he challenged the Defendant, the Defendant, having said he was not sure if they worked on the outside, had checked them and found that they did in fact work well. In answer to Court, the Defendant said the Plaintiff's son probably asked him this question because his indicator light must have gone out when he turned back to his side after the accident. This was not suggested to the Plaintiff's son in cross-examination and sounded rather glib to me.

However, the question that really arises in this case is whether the Plaintiff's son was violating the prohibition against overtaking at an intersection and whether the Defendant had discharged the burden of care cast by the law on a person turning off a road or changing direction on a road. The Plaintiff's son says he moved out to overtake because he thought the Defendant was pulling over to park. The Defendant himself said he had not commenced turning when he was hit. The Plaintiff's son was not cross-examined on his statement that he thought the Defendant was going to park. If he thought the Defendant was parking, he cannot be faulted for pulling over to pass him for he would have no alternative if the Defendant had in fact been pulling over to park before the intersection. On the other hand the Defendant himself admitted that he had misjudged the distance at which the Plaintiff's car was following and had turned when the car was in fact too close behind him to safely do so. If that were in fact the case he either did not signal his left turn or did so when it was too late to avoid the accident.

I do not agree with Mr. Barrow's interpretation of Regulation 114(2)(d). It is in my opinion a mandatory prohibition against overtaking at an intersection, but in view of Plaintiff's son's evidence that he was passing a vehicle he thought was pulling over to park, he was not overtaking a vehicle within the meaning of that regulation. Any other interpretation would literally stop traffic.

I do agree with his submission that Regulation 115 casts the burden, of making certain that it is safe to change direction, on the person seeking to change direction. He is required to ascertain that it is safe from every direction and I agree that this must include traffic from behind him.

Regulation 114(3) goes even further and provides that any risk of an accident caused by a turning vehicle shall be held to have resulted from an obstruction of other traffic by the driver of the vehicle which is seeking to turn or cross the road.

In all these circumstances, I am satisfied that on a balance of probabilities the accident was caused by the Defendant's admitted miscalculation and that the Plaintiff's son did not contribute to it by moving out to pass what he thought was a vehicle about to park, because the Defendant did in fact slow down and kept to his side and did not indicate his intention to turn.

I award damages in a sum of $698 and costs to the Plaintiff.

----------OO----------