Source: Al Emarat Al Youm – Khor fakkan Appeals Court
Khor fakkan Court of Appeal overturns tanker driver’s conviction in elderly man accident case
The Khorfakkan Court of Appeal has annulled a previous ruling that had convicted a tanker driver in a case involving the run-over of an elderly man. The court acquitted the driver of the charges of causing injury by negligence and failing to stop to provide assistance.
The court concluded that the victim was solely responsible for the occurrence of the accident.
Case Details:
The events date back to September 2025, when the defendant was accused of driving his vehicle without due caution, which led to running over and injuring a person, and additionally of failing to stop and assist the victim after the accident.
The court of first instance had fined the defendant 2,000 dirhams after convicting him on both charges. The Public Prosecution appealed, seeking a harsher sentence, and the Court of Appeal later sentenced him to three months in prison. However, the Court of Cassation annulled the appellate judgment in March, citing insufficient reasoning, and returned the case to a different panel for retrial before the Court of Appeal.
During the retrial, the court examined all case documents, including the investigation report, accident sketch, technical report, and statements from the parties, to clarify the circumstances of the incident.
The defendant’s lawyer, Mohamed Al Awami Al Mansouri, argued that the driver was unaware of the collision and that the victim’s actions were the sole and direct cause of the accident.
He also stated that the size and mechanical nature of the heavy vehicle, along with the noise generated during its operation, prevented the driver from sensing the impact. He explained that the driver only became aware of the incident later, after being contacted by the police following identification of the vehicle through surveillance cameras. The lawyer pointed out that the victim had not exercised caution while crossing, as he came out from behind a stationary vehicle and did not use the nearby pedestrian crossing, then suddenly moved into the tanker’s path, making the accident unavoidable.
The court noted that the accident occurred as the tanker was moving from a stationary position in front of a house after completing its work. The victim, 76 years old, suddenly appeared from behind a parked vehicle, attempting to cross the road from an undesignated area.
The court highlighted that the victim entered directly into the vehicle’s path, within a “blind spot” for the driver, preventing him from seeing or avoiding the collision, especially given the heavy nature of the vehicle.
The court also concluded that the vehicle was moving normally, with no evidence of a traffic violation, and that the defendant was unaware of the incident at the time and only realized it later after contact from the authorities.
The court emphasized that merely the occurrence of an accident is not sufficient to convict a driver unless it is proven beyond doubt that he committed a direct fault leading to the outcome. Criminal rulings must be based on certainty, not suspicion or possibility.
It pointed out that the victim’s crossing from an undesignated area and sudden emergence from behind a vehicle constituted gross negligence that overshadowed any possible error by the driver and was sufficient on its own to cause the accident. The court also found that the second charge of failing to provide assistance did not apply, given the lack of proof that the driver was aware of the accident.
Ultimately, the court accepted the appeal procedurally and, on the merits, annulled the appealed judgment, acquitting the defendant of all charges due to absence of fault on his part and the confirmed contributory cause represented by the victim’s behavior.