A driver was cleared of all criminal liability in a collision that cost the life of a motorcyclist who crashed into the rear end of his car while going at twice the maximum speed limit. 

The accident happened five years ago when Ryan Sultana, 24, had just exited a narrow side road onto Triq Ħal Far, limits of Gudja heading in the direction of the airport.

It was around 6pm when he suddenly heard “a loud noise” and his Toyota Vitz “shook” as a Honda bike rider crashed into the rear end of the car.

“At that moment, I froze because I knew that there had been no one approaching,” the driver later recalled, explaining how he had manoeuvred his vehicle, an automatic model, onto the main road after looking in both directions, twice over.

There had been no oncoming traffic in sight, insisted the young driver who was subsequently prosecuted for allegedly causing the death of the rider, dangerous and reckless driving as well as causing damage to the victim’s vehicle. 

Sultana protested his innocence.

The victim’s lawyer argued that when venturing onto the main road, even if not at excessive speed, the accused made it impossible for the motorcyclist to avoid impact since the distance was too short. 

However, the dynamics of the incident appeared to show otherwise.

The Toyota driver had stopped at the stop sign before exiting onto the main road, had then chosen his lane and was driving on the main road when the collision took place.

His car was extensively impacted with damages concentrated at the rear area, including the back door, windscreen, mudguards and lights and also extending to the roof. 

A court-appointed traffic expert reported that although the speed limit at that stretch of road was 50km per hour, the motorcyclist had been driving at 96km per hour.

Moreover, an hour or so before the crash, a speed camera located on St Andrews Road, Pembroke had captured the same motorcycle driving by at 87.6km per hour, namely well above the maximum speed limit of 70km per hour.

When delivering judgment, the court, presided over by magistrate Joseph Mifsud, delved into a detailed study of the concept of negligence and contributory negligence.

Turning to the evidence at hand, including the position of the accused’s car and the expert’s accident sketch, the court found nothing to contradict the “determining factor” that the victim had been driving at excessive speed. 

Such evidence could not be rebutted merely through arguments but evidence, said Mifsud, focusing upon the crucial question as to whether the accused could have foreseen the incident.

Yet evidence showed that Sultana “could neither foresee, let alone avoid” the crash.

But not so the victim, went on the court.

The court expert explained that had the motorcyclist been driving within legal speed limits, he could have brought his bike to a standstill over a distance of 27.58 metres which meant that the collision would have been avoided. 

In light of such considerations, the court found no negligence on the part of the accused and no evidence proving that he had failed to take all necessary precautions or had flouted traffic regulations. 

Applying the “reasonable man” test and citing eminent jurist Sir Anthony Mamo, the court concluded that the law demanded, “not that which is conceivably possible but that which is reasonable. Were men to act on any other principle but this, excess of caution would paralyze the business of the world”.

Lawyer René Darmanin was defence counsel.