The Lower Court Judge wrote this opinion:

• Mr Gordon should be more careful when preparing to enter a highway, since there are other people using the highways and his car is bigger and can cause them a lot of damage.
• The Judge ruled that Mr Gordon had not been careful enough and a young boy was hurt.
• He ordered Mr. Gordon to pay for Nong’s medical costs as well as the court and legal expenses his family spent bringing the case to court.

Mr. Gordon did not agree and presented these facts and reasons to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Gordon asked the Court of Appeal to consider that:
• Nong was an inexperienced driver who had never taken a driving test or obtained a license to drive.
• He was 13 years old, and was driving with an injured foot, which limited his ability to control his motorcycle.
• Because there were trees and bushes growing up to the edge of the road, it was harder to see his motorcycle when it approached from the wrong direction.
• Whereas, Mr Gordon was focusing his attention on the cars coming in the proper direction so he could safely enter the flow of traffic.

Mr. Gordon asked the Court of Appeals to re- examine the evidence presented in the primary court and consider that:

• Mr Gordon had over 20 years experience driving.
• He had no previous accidents.
• He had held an International Driving License all that time.
• He had not broken any traffic Law.
• No evidence had been presented in the Lower Court to show how he could have been any more careful than he had been.
• Mr Gordon claimed that the law requiring drivers to drive in the same direction as the traffic and on the correct side of the road was a good law and resulted in safer driving for everyone.
• He argued that the Lower Court ruling could encourage the general public to ignore laws that protected everyone.
• Mr Gordon asked the Court of Appeals to overturn the Lower Court's Opinion and find for the Defendant.