A man charged with causing a three-vehicle collision told Supreme Court the alleged victim was in the wrong lane.Eric Dunkley, 40, has denied a charge of causing taxi driver Christopher Dailey grievous bodily harm through reckless driving in an early morning crash on June 5, 2011.Prosecutors had alleged that Mr Dunkley was racing another vehicle along Southside Road, travelling east in the westbound lane, when the crash took place. A third vehicle, which was travelling a short distance behind Mr Dunkley, struck the damaged vehicles after the initial collision.Taking the stand in his own defence, Mr Dunkley told the court that on the morning in question he saw Mr Dailey at a party at Gombey’s Bar and Restaurant in St David’s. During his time there, he said Mr Dailey appeared to be drunk.Mr Dunkley said he could not recall exactly when he left the club, but he remembered that Police ended the party at around 3.30pm.Walking back to his jeep, Mr Dunkley said he saw Mr Dailey asleep in his taxi near the Turtle Bay parking area. After listening to music on his stereo, the defendant said he drove a friend to the Crawl Hill area, then drove back to St David’s on his way to his son’s home on Sofar Lane.However after negotiating the roundabout on Southside Road, he saw a pair of headlights rushing towards him in the eastbound lane. Mr Dunkley told the court that attempted to take evasive action and may have honked his horn, but could not escape a head-on impact.“The pain was intense,” he told the court. “Ten out of ten. My arm was snapped in half.”Mr Dunkley was taken to King Edward VII Memorial Hospital for treatment, where he remained for nearly two weeks for serious injuries.Noting photographs of the crash scene, he told the court he believed Mr Dailey was in the wrong lane and had attempted to turn back into the westbound lane, causing the collision.Prosecutor Maria Sofianos however challenged Mr Dunkley’s interpretation of the accident scene, asking: “In course of your career as a hairdresser, how many collisions have you attended?”He repeatedly denied that he had been racing with another vehicle or driving at a high rate of speed, telling the court he had no reason to lie.Asked if the cost of increased insurance premiums or avoiding a criminal conviction would be reason to lie, Mr Dunkley said both suggestions were incorrect.