Wakilii

Walles v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 268 · 1955 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for careless driving
Decision
Conviction for careless driving upheld

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The sole question in a careless driving prosecution is whether the accused exercised the care and attention a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances. Contributory negligence of another driver is irrelevant. A road user may assume traffic regulations will be observed, but once he has observed approaching traffic travelling at excessive speed, he cannot rely on that assumption and must take reasonable care to avoid collision. The appellant, having seen the lorry approaching at terrific speed from quite far away, was careless in attempting to cross its path.

Outcome

Conviction for careless driving upheld

Facts

On 30 December 1954 at about noon, the appellant drove a Peugeot pick-up from Ring Road into the intersection with Sclaters Road, a major road subject to a 30 mph speed limit. The appellant stopped at a Slow sign where trees and a hedge partially obscured his view. Seeing nothing, he advanced. Upon reaching the kerb line, he saw an army lorry approaching from his right at what he described as terrific speed, but formed the impression it would pass behind him. He continued across at 10-15 mph. The lorry, travelling on Sclaters Road, collided with the right rear corner of the appellant's car near the centre of the road. The lorry driver and passenger estimated their speed at 30 mph and the appellant's at 30-35 mph. The appellant estimated his own speed at not more than 20 mph approaching the crossing and 10-15 mph crossing it. The resident magistrate convicted the appellant of careless driving, finding he was careless in commencing to cross without stopping for a second look given the obstructed view.

Issues

  1. Whether the contributory negligence of another driver is relevant to a charge of careless driving under section 47(1) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953.
  2. Whether an accused driver may assume that other road users will observe speed limits when determining if he exercised due care and attention.
  3. Whether the appellant exercised due care and attention when crossing a major road after observing an approaching vehicle travelling at excessive speed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Careless Driving — Test for Conviction — Standard of Care Required
The sole question for a court trying a charge of careless driving under section 47(1) of the Traffic Ordinance, 1953, is whether the person charged was exercising due care and attention, that is to say the degree of care and attention which a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances.
Careless Driving — Contributory Negligence — Irrelevance to Prosecution
Whether the driver of another vehicle could, in the agony of the moment, have taken better avoiding action is immaterial to a prosecution for careless driving. The offence can be committed although no accident takes place. Equally, because an accident does occur it does not follow that a particular person has driven without due care and attention.
Careless Driving — Assumption of Compliance with Traffic Regulations — Limits
A road user is entitled to assume that traffic regulations will be observed by other road users, and that principle applies in considering whether a person accused of careless driving has or has not been careless. However, there can be no room for any assumption if the accused has noticed the approaching traffic in time. Once he has observed traffic travelling at excessive speed, it is his duty to take reasonable care to avoid a collision, notwithstanding that the other driver is acting in breach of speed regulations.
Careless Driving — Duty to Keep Proper Look-Out — Crossing Major Road
A driver about to cross a major road at an hour when considerable traffic is to be expected must take care that he can execute the manoeuvre in safety. It is for him to keep a proper look-out and, if advancing slowly while doing so, he must see approaching traffic in time to stop and let it pass.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Traffic Ordinance 1953 s.47(1)

Cases cited (3)

  • Simpson v Peat [1952] 1 All ER 447
  • Bailey v Geddes [1938] 1 KB 156
  • Joseph Eva Ltd v Reeves [1938] 2 KB 393

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Walles v Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1955) [1955] EACA 268 (1 January 1955)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.