Supreme Court upholds fine for triggering road accident

ABU DHABI — The Federal Supreme Court has turned down the appeal by a Kuwaiti national who sought a review of a lower court order slapping him with a fine of Dh800 for triggering a traffic accident.

By Adel Arafah

  • Follow us on
  • google-news
  • whatsapp
  • telegram

Published: Fri 16 Jun 2006, 11:27 AM

Last updated: Sat 4 Apr 2015, 7:22 PM

The public prosecution charged Ismail Mohammed with barging on to the public road in Sharjah on March 14, 2005, without according priority to the flow of traffic on the main thoroughfare. The prosecution contended Ismail's recklessness had triggered a collision with another car. He also faced two other charges of reckless driving endangering lives of members of the public and of causing unintentional damage to others' property.

The public prosecution demanded that Ismail be punished as per Articles 652/1, 53/2, 54 and 57/1 of the Federal Traffic Law No (21) of 1995. On April 12, 2005, the Court of First Instance had ordered the defendant to pay a fine of Dh800 in view of the charges.

Ismail contested the verdict in the Federal Supreme Court in Sharjah, which turned down the appeal and upheld the previous verdict of May 23, 2005.

In his petition before the Federal Supreme Court, the defendant said the judgment violated the law because it convicted him on the three offences on the ground that he was to be blamed for causing the accident.

He submitted that he had entered the main road after making sure that there were no approaching vehicles and that the accident took place after he had already taken the main road.

The damage on the rear of his car was proof that the driver of the other car was guilty of excessive speed, he maintained.

In its reply, the court said the defendant's argument was irrelevant since the Sharjah Traffic Police report had confirmed that the defendant had swung on to the main road suddenly and without offering free passage to other road users.

The traffic report added that the speed of the other motorist had nothing to do with the accident. ''The defendant should have assessed the speed before he entered the main road,'' the report noted. On May 27, 2006, the Federal Supreme Court turned down the appeal and upheld the lower court's judgment.



More news from