IN THE RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT
AT SUVA

Traffic Case No. 3564 of 2003

STATE

V

ASKAR ALI s/o Gulab Dan

JUDGMENT

The accused Askar Ali s/o Gulab Dan is charged with: Careless Driving Contrary to Section 99(1) and 114 of the Land Transport Act No: 35 of 1998.

He denied the charge.

PW1 Alipate Karikaritu told the Court that the vehicle he was driving on 25/2/03 GM 854 was involved in an accident with the accused’s vehicle.

It was about 8.15 am, PW1 was on his way to CWM Hospital with 4 other soldiers. At Nabua on the Kings Road, the accused’s taxi drove out from Lady Maraia Drive onto the Kings Road and collided with PW1’s vehicle. PW1 described there was a line of vehicles on the road. A bus was ahead on the outside lane while he was following a taxi on the inner lane. The bus stopped giving way to the accused to drive across its path towards Nausori. At the time, the taxi PW1 was following had driven off. PW1’s attempt to avoid being hit by the accused’s taxi was in vain. The taxi bumped his vehicle on its left fender. 

PW3 Vacolo Mougale was a passenger seated on the front seat with PW1. He described the traffic was very busy on the Kings Road that morning while they were on their way to Suva. Approaching Ratu Sukuna School, the traffic light turned green and they drove on. The accused taxi came from Ratu Sukuna School side and bumped into their vehicle near the front left tyre. 

In his statement to police, the accused said that he did not notice PW1’s vehicle until it reached the pedestrian crossing presumably where the traffic lights are. The taxi in front of PW1’s vehicle gave him chance to pass, likewise the bus driver.

In his sworn evidence, the accused said that PW1’s vehicle could not stop behind the taxi and swerved to his right hitting his bumper and headlight. His vehicle was dragged towards the Sukanaivalu Road where it finally stopped. 

He admitted in cross-examination that traffic was heavy that morning; the cars were "bumper to bumper." The accident took place about 15 meters after the traffic lights towards Suva direction. He said he waited for the traffic lights long enough then decided to take a chance but with precautions. 

The accused called Mr Mohd. Yasin to testify on his behalf. He is the driver of the taxi in front of PW1’s vehicle. He said he saw the accused’s taxi came in front of the bus and he stopped his taxi to give way to the accused. The vehicle behind him failed to stop and swerved to the right hitting the accused’s vehicle. He left the scene few minutes after the accident. He admitted in cross-examination that the road was busy and traffic was slow, "bumper to bumper". But then he said that PW1’s vehicle came at high speed and could not stop behind him.

It is not disputed on the evidence there was an accident on the Kings Highway at Nabua on 25/2/03, involving PW1’s vehicle GM854 and taxi registration number CG032 driven by the accused. The accident happened on a Tuesday morning with heavy traffic on the Kings Highway about 15 meters from the traffic lights towards Suva direction.

The question for determination by the Court is whether or not the accused was at fault, in that the accident was caused by his carelessness.

Since PW1 was on the main Kings Highway, he has the right of way. The accused came from a side road, the Lady Maraia Drive intending to cross 2 lanes to get into the lane to Nausori. The road was busy with traffic. The bus driver gave way to the accused to drive across his path.

I do not accept the accused’s evidence as well as his witness that DW2 also gave him way to drive across. They both admitted the road was heavy with traffic; the vehicles were "bumper to bumper". If that was the case, how could PW1 drive his vehicle with high speed as they both claimed. I find as fact on the evidence that although the accused was given way to cross his path by the bus driver who was on the outside lane, the accused view was obstructed by the bus and could not see if the inner lane was clear for him to safely turn towards Nausori. This is confirmed by his statement to police where he said in his answer to question 11 that he did not notice GM 854 coming till it reached the pedestrian crossing. DW2’s taxi had driven off. He did not give accused the chance to pass. If what he claimed is the truth, why did he not wait for police to arrive. The reason is that he had driven off before the accused drove into the inner lane, on PW1’s path. The traffic lights are installed at that stretch of Kings Road and direction they indicate must be followed. The accused said he waited long enough for the lights and decided to take a chance.

In so doing, he was taking a risk demanding extra precautions from him. He failed to clearly observe with precautions traffic flow on the Kings Highway when taking the risk and any road mishap that follows is his fault.

Accordingly, I find that the accident between PW1’s vehicle and the accused’s vehicle on 25/2/03 on the Kings Highway was caused by the accused’s own fault. In other words, he was careless in his manner of driving. He is therefore found guilty of the offence of Careless Driving and convicted accordingly.

28 days to appeal.

N. Lomaiviti (Ms)
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

7/6/04