Chua Chong Cher v Teo Lang Keow and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 09 February 1970
• Neutral Citation: [1970] SGCA 2
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y27 of 1969
• Date: 09 February 1970
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1970
• Plaintiff Counsel: DH Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1970] SGCA 2
• Defendant Counsel: ASK Wee (ASK Wee)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether motorcyclist or bus driver to blame,How court should decide which version is more probable,Whether appellate court can examine evidence and arrive at own conclusion as to which version to accept,Conflicting versions of evidence given at trial,Bus approaching from behind colliding into motorcyclist, going to wrong side of road, and colliding into on-coming vehicle,Negligence,Motorcyclist stopped in middle of road,Tort,Appeals,Civil Procedure

At the conclusion of the hearing we allowed the appeal indicating that we would give our reasons at a later date. We now proceed to do so.

The first respondent, a passenger in a bus No SH 706 belonging to the second respondent, was injured as a result of a collision between bus No SH 706 and a bus No SH 190 belonging to the third respondent. She brought an action in the High Court against the first and second respondents as well as against the appellant, the owner and rider of motor cycle No SAG 3250 which was also involved in the same collision. The first respondent alleged her injuries were caused by the negligent driving of the servant of the second respondent, or alternatively by the negligent driving of the servant of the third respondent, or alternatively by the negligent riding of the appellant or alternatively on the part of any two or all of them.

The High Court gave judgment for the first respondent in the sum of $5,500 against the appellant the owner of the motor cycle and dismissed with costs the claim against the second and third respondents. It was ordered that the first, second and third respondents` costs of the action as between party and party be taxed and paid by the appellant.

The appellant appeals against that part of the learned judge`s decision with regard to liability.

The undisputed facts were shortly these. The appellant stopped his motor cycle in the middle of River Valley Road intending to turn right into Leonie Hill Road. Bus SH 706 (hereinafter referred to as the Hock Lee bus) was coming from the opposite direction along River Valley Road. Bus SH 190 (hereinafter referred to as the Tay Koh Yat bus) was coming along River Valley Road behind the appellant`s motor cycle. On reaching the appellant`s motor cycle the Tay Koh Yat bus suddenly swerved to its right collided with the motor cycle and went to the wrong side of the road and collided into the Hock Lee bus. As a result of the collision between the two buses the first respondent, who was a passenger in the Hock Lee bus, sustained personal injuries.

During the trial it was conceded by the appellant that the driver of the Hock Lee bus was not to blame at all. The third respondent similarly attributed no fault to the driver of the Hock Lee bus. The contest was then between the appellant and the third respondent. The learned trial judge said:

The sole question in issue was whether the bus driver of the Tay Koh Yat bus (of the second defendant) who was travelling

...