"The downward wet slope, coupled with smooth tyres would have presented difficulty for [the truck] to steer and slow down. Hydroplaning is a phenomenon that exists when depth of tyre grooves is insufficient to hold the layer of water across the tyre width, thereby diminishing the tyre/road surface interface. In other words, the tyre is floating in water. Additionally, the brake shoes could have been wet, making braking less effective. This phenomenon is known as 'Brake Fade'. It was reported that another vehicle stopped in front of the truck. It may well be that [the] truck driver in an attempt to slow down or stop behind that vehicle, discovered that braking was ineffective, at which time he swerved to the right to avoid hitting the parked vehicle."
"This was a ten-ton truck. When the road is wet a good tyre would hold the water in the thread grooves. If the grooves are too shallow the tyre becomes like a boat. The water is not squeezed out through the grooves but rather the interface between the road and the tyre is lost so that the tyres are riding on the water. The result is that in an emergency situation it would be difficult if evasive action is required through steering for the driver to steer/control the vehicle. Having regard to the state of the road and of the front tyres I cannot tell you what would be a safe speed in those circumstances. Certainly a speed of 50mph or 80 kph would be too fast in an emergency situation."
"Having reviewed the evidence, especially the evidence of the expert, Carl Cupid which this Court accepted, it made the following findings: 1. The plaintiff was asleep at the time of the collision. Accordingly this Court rejected his testimony as to how the collision occurred. 2. [The truck] with defective front tyres was overtaking several vehicles while going down-hill on a wet road at an excessive speed, in the region of 100 kph in the early morning, when it skidded into the path of the [maxi-taxi] which was itself being driven at a speed of approximately 80 kph immediately before the collision, which speed was also excessive in the circumstances. 3. The point of impact was 1-4 feet off the southern shoulder of the Eastern Main Road, which was only 10.8 feet wide. Therefore on impact the maxi could not have been pushed 40 feet further south on the shoulder. 4. The collision was caused by the negligence of the drivers of both vehicles: a) The driver of the truck was driving at an excessive speed on a wet road with defective tyres and overtook when it was unsafe; b) The driver of the maxi was driving too fast in the circumstances and not keeping a proper look-out."
"[S]ince the force of the impact pushed the left front wheel of the truck with its suspension two feet back, it was unlikely that the maxi was almost at a standstill immediately before the impact."
"The role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial judge's findings of facts is severely limited. The court will not interfere simply because it takes a different view of the evidence. The responsibility for finding the facts and drawing inferences from them is for the trial judge who enjoys the distinct advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses. The trial judge's finding is not to be disturbed unless it can be demonstrated that it is affected by material inconsistencies and inaccuracies or that he or she may have failed to appreciate the weight or bearing of the circumstances admitted or proved [or is] otherwise [shown] to be plainly wrong."
"21. We are of the view that the evidence of Cupid in particular . . . primarily pointed to the truck driver and the condition of tyres on the truck. Of significance also is Cupid's overall analysis that the truck crossed the path of the maxi and there was a collision between them. Therefore, we feel that the evidence showed clearly that the truck driver placed himself in a dangerous position when he crossed into the maxi's lane. He knew the risk to which he subjected himself and other road users generally when he crossed into the opposite lane. The evidence revealed that prior to the collision there were three vehicles parked in the truck driver's lane. The truck driver ought to have stopped behind those three vehicles and waited for the maxi driver to pass him before crossing into the maxi's lane. However the truck driver declined to do so and therefore he was the author of his own misfortune. 25. . . . We find that the collision occurred whilst [the taxi driver] was responding to an emergency situation created by the manner in which [the truck driver] drove the motor truck. When such a situation occurs it should be remembered that the standard that is required is the objective standard of care in negligence. The conduct of a party acting in an emergency situation is stated in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 18 th ed. at paragraph 7-166: 'All that is necessary in such a circumstance is that the conduct should not have been unreasonable, taking the exigencies of the particular situation into account. Thus in Ng Chun Pui v Lee Chuen Tat , the Privy Council held that the driver of a coach, who had braked, swerved and skidded when another car had cut in front of him without warning, had acted reasonably in the emergency.' 23. We feel that based on all the evidence the maxi driver's options to avoid the collision were severely limited since the truck was considerably larger than the maxi and the truck driver assumed a dangerous position when he occupied the maxi's lane rather than wait for it to pass the three vehicles parked before proceeding further. We do not feel that the maxi driver would have been in any position to prevent a collision and on the actual findings which the judge made, she did not state what, in her view were the actions or omissions that made the maxi driver negligent. She also failed to state what duty he breached and what acts or omissions caused the resulting damage. It was not sufficient for the judge simply to enumerate her findings as she did."