CCTV footage clears bus driver accused of running over pedestrian

A bus driver has been cleared of responsibility for an accident in which a pedestrian was run over while crossing the road, after a court was shown footage of the victim running into the bus' path from between parked cars.

36-year-old bus driver Stephen Muscat had pleaded not guilty to grievously injuring Joanna Borg in an incident that occurred in the afternoon of 28 July 2014, as he had been driving from Qawra to Bugibba. Inspector Godwin Scerri, prosecuting, had also charged Muscat with negligent and reckless driving and speeding.

A CCTV on a nearby property had captured the incident in its entirety. The footage showed Borg rushing from where she had been waiting on to the pavement, before running onto the road from in between two parked cars.

When the victim had reached the outer edge of the parked vehicles, she had stopped to let an oncoming car pass before continuing her dash onto the road. Unfortunately, by that time the accused had already arrived alongside the parked car that she was crossing from behind.

Borg had stepped into the middle of he road, directly in the path of the oncoming bus, which by onboard sensors established had been travelling at 43.2 km/hr. She suffered lacerations to her face, fractures and blood in her lungs and had for a time been in danger of dying.

Magistrate Doreen Clarke noted that the footage confirmed the accused's account of what had happened, showing him as turning hard to the left and braking hard.

Quoting jurisprudence, the court said that for any involuntary offence, what must be proven was imprudence, negligence, lack of skill or recklessness. It noted that while there was no doubt that motorists are obliged to observe the rules of the road and keep a proper lookout, there was also a corresponding duty on the pedestrian to observe other rules, listed in the highway code. These rules included avoiding crossing roads from between parked cars, ensuring that the pedestrian is visible to drivers, crossing the road only when it is safe to do so.

Data recorded on the bus showed that the accused had been reducing his speed, the court said, and Muscat had testified that he not stopped at the bus stop because he hadn't seen anyone waiting there.

The applicable speed limit had been 40km/hr and so the accused had technically been speeding. However, the court said that what needed to be established was whether it was the cause of the accident. “Whilst nobody can deny that the accused had been driving slightly faster than permissible, likewise nobody can deny that the injured party also failed to observe her obligations,” the court said.

“In fact, it can be said that when she came to cross the road, Borg did everything that she was not supposed to do.”

The court noted that not every non-observance of the dispositions of the highway code necessarily implied negligent or reckless driving. To fall under this definition, the contravention must actually affect the quality of the driver's performance. No evidence had been produced to show that the accused's speed had any impact on the quality or manner of the accused's driving performance, it held.

The court said it was convinced that Borg had caused the incident in which she was hurt when she “created an instant emergency” which rendered timely evasive action by the defendant impossible.

Muscat was cleared of all charges relating to Borg's injuries, being found guilty only of exceeding the speed limit. He was fined €50.

Lawyer Edward Gatt was defence counsel.