35As described earlier, the Nissan was practically charging down CAW at a dangerous speed when it should have been obvious to any driver paying attention to the traffic situation ahead of him that the junction was fairly busy and that there were vehicles waiting to turn across the junction. The appellant agreed that he did not lift his foot off the accelerator although he did not accelerate. Two motorcycles and the unknown vehicle were seen moving across the junction in the path of the Nissan when it was near the junction. It was surely incumbent on the appellant, as the driver of the Nissan, to have slowed down to a speed where he could deal with the possibility that a vehicle at the other end of CAW would start to turn right too early. An attentive and cautious driver would certainly have slowed down his vehicle immediately, especially if it was then travelling at between 74 and 87 kmph. However, the appellant did not do so and missed the turning unknown vehicle narrowly. As the Taxi started to move into the junction merely because the unknown vehicle had done so, the trial Judge was correct to hold the second respondent largely to blame for the accident and to have assessed his liability at 65%. Equally, the trial Judge was entirely justified in finding the appellant to be 35% liable although this percentage was not within the range that the appellant contended ought to be the norm.