Collett JA, Forte JA, Zacca JA
IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS COURT OF APPEAL
Grand Court
RODNEY CHESTNUT
(Defendant) Appellant
BEFORE:
Appearances:
Heard: 20th July, 2001
LOFTER BLAIR VALGARDSON
(Plaintiff)
The Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice E. Zacca, P.
The Hon. Mr. Justice G. Collett, J.A.
The Hon. Mr. Justice I. Forte, J.A.
Melanie Crinis of Campbells for the Appell-
Robinson of Quin & Hampson for the Responden-
0041 Delivered: 30th July,
JUDGMENT & REASONS
(Affid) Respondent
resident
ant and Hector
2004
Collett, J.A.
This is an Appeal
Court, whereby
responsible for
accident which
Cayman. The Re-
al against the Judgment of Mr. Justice Panton by the learned Judge found the Appellant
the damages sustained by the Respondent/Pla-
occurred on 27th March, 2000 on West Bay.
respondent had been travelling southwards on I
in the Grand
to be 100%
ntiff in a road
Road, Grand
is pedal cycle
when, as the J
driven across t
centre lane of t
The Responde
nce path of his cycle in an attempt to turn to the
road into the West Shore Centre. .
he had been riding on the extreme left hand side
motor car being
right from the
of the road, in
a position with
customary lane
parties, even th
the Road Traf
relevant time d
shopping centre
southbound lan
positioned just
that the lane behind evidence showed was regarded as clear
for cyclists, a factor which was within the kin
though it has not been legally designated as such. Law. The learned Judge found that he
did not exceed 10 mph. As he approached the .
the Respondent noticed the traffic was at
he of the road behind a substantial sized bu
before the entrance to the shopping centre is re-
before him was clear, he continued warily only as being the
wledge of both
in pursuant to
speed at the
entrance to the
a halt in the
s, which was
reached. Seeing
yards and had
nearly cleared
front wheel for
across his path
avoid the collis-
tion when his cycle was struck in the
by the front of the Appellants vehicle whi
in front of the stationary bus. The Respondent
on although he applied his rear hand brake, an
vicinity of the
an had turned
was unable to
d the force of
the impact car
causing his rig
The relevant fe
at the trial the
stipulated him over the handlebars into the side
it wrist to be fractured.
cts were not generally in dispute and where a
learned Judge, as he was entitled to do, prefer
er of the road,
direct existed
d the evidence
of the plaintin
alleged against
He held the Ap
The Appellant
centre lane of t
southbound traf
centre entrance
proceed in front Respondent and found that the partis
the Appellant in the Statement of Claim he
fellant to be totally responsible for the accident.
his evidence at trial had been that he was sta
tionary in the
the stream of
the shopping
malled him to
river reported
his gesture, whi
front of the bus
It is clear from
others (1969).
the Authorities and in particular Clarke vs. I
AER 275, that the Appellant was not entitled to his right in
to his right in
vinchurch and
to rely upon
the bus driver could be taken doing so with cyclist was apparently negligent. The signals as indicating that it was safe to turn, but taking sufficient precautions to ensure, in proceeding from behind the bus, the Appellant only question for this Court is whether, as the m: these only m proceeded. In r alia, that no nt was clearly e Judge found, he was merely if blame ought to We have carefully but, since ever greatly assisted, accepted, indi cated entrance before responsible for the confusion of which some pri rest with the cyclist. ly considered the authorities helpfully cited to traffic incident is peculiar to its own fac by these. The Respondent's evidence, which ates that he had all but cleared the southe d his cycle was hit. This is confirmed by the investigating police officer and by the exposition of the us by counsel s, we are not ich the Judge m and of the e sketch map professional e testimony was There might ha some minimal g p amine r who analysed the physical evidence accepted by the Judge. have been room at first instance for the trier of fa percentage of blame to the Respondent for not e and whose t to apportion slowing down
further as he p
front of that vi
the Responden
this Court whi
seeing and hear
ing and he
did not enjoy the advantage which the tri-
ing had done so,
nt, it is not for
him to have had of
dual views for
those which he
We can therefor
the learned Jud
Judgment below.
formed at the conclusion of the trial.
were see no good reason to interfere with the find-
ing. Accordingly this Appeal is dismissed with
it is affirmed.
ings of fact of
a costs and the