Goh Geok Buay and Others v Edward HJ and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A V Winslow J
• Judgment Date: 20 August 1973
• Neutral Citation: [1973] SGHC 20
• Docket Number: Suit No 899 of 1971
• Date: 20 August 1973
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1973
• Plaintiff Counsel: Amin Valibhoy (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1973] SGHC 20
• Defendant Counsel: M Coomaraswamy (Rodyk & Davidson),Yap Tyou Min (Battenberg & Talma)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Negligence,Whether collision caused by insufficient braking distance,Causation,Traffic collision from the rear,Tort,Highway Code

The second defendant in Suit 899/71, who is a taxi driver, has appealed against my decision therein finding him wholly negligent in respect of a three-cornered collision which took place between the taxi driven by himself, a military truck driven by the first defendant and a motor van driven by the third plaintiff as a result of which the first and third plaintiffs were injured. Damages were agreed. The only question I had to decide was the question of liability as between the first defendant and the second defendant/appellant, ie, whether the first defendant or the second defendant or both were negligent.

There was no question of any negligence on the part of the third plaintiff who drove the motor van.

Shortly after noon on 16 June 1970 under good weather conditions and with hardly any other traffic on the road, the three vehicles came into collision in the following circumstances.

The third plaintiff was driving his motor van in the direction of Changi along Upper Changi Road when near the 12th milestone, his van was involved in an accident with a military truck which, according to him, came over to his side of the road and collided with him immediately after colliding with the taxi which had previously been travelling ahead of the truck. He stated that on seeing the collision between the truck and the taxi in front of it he slowed down and stopped on the grass verge on his own side of the road. Although he was not a satisfactory witness particularly as to his recollection of exact distances, he was quite emphatic that both the taxi and the truck were travelling towards him at a speed of about 30 mph in each case. He also seemed quite certain that the taxi `slowed down suddenly` which he further clarified by stating that `it jerked to a halt for a fraction of a second and then moved on`. He was quite positive that the taxi did not give a signal before it stopped. He also said that he saw people hailing the taxi. As I have already said, his memory as to distances left a good deal to be desired and he kept changing his estimate of the distances between the two vehicles, when he first saw them approaching him, from 20 feet to 120 feet and to 100 feet and then back again to 20 feet. Too much reliance cannot therefore be placed on this witness.

I was therefore left mainly with the evidence of the first and the second defendants and the police reports made by all three drivers and the sketch plan in the agreed bundle to say nothing of the photographs.

I now turn to the evidence of the first defendant, Handley, who was the driver of the military truck. He claimed that he had driven actively in the British Army in the United Kingdom, Germany, Europe and in Singapore for seven years during which he was never involved in any motor accident. He said he held a heavy goods vehicles licence and could drive any vehicle. I had no reason whatsoever to doubt his veracity as a witness. He gave his evidence with complete candour.

He said that he was driving his truck at approximately 30 mph, which was the speed-limit there, from Changi toward the direction of the city intending to turn left into Tenah Merah Besar on his way back to camp and that he was in no hurry because he had finished his work. He said that he followed the taxi in question for about a mile at a steady 30 mph at a distance of about 20 yards behind it which he kept up. He had no intention of overtaking it at all.

After passing the double white lines at the end of a bend to the left he was on the straight with the taxi still 20 yards in front of him when it suddenly stopped in front of him causing him to brake sharply whereupon his truck skidded and collided with the rear of the taxi. The truck then slewed round in a clockwise direction to the right and ran into the on-coming van which was then stationary practically opposite to the point of collision with the taxi but on the other side of the road.

He claimed that he kept his vehicle under control by keeping straight until it hit the taxi which was stationary whilst he was still skidding.

He said that he could not swerve right because of the on-coming van nor swerve left because of the monsoon drain, a bus stop, lamp-post and trees.

He agreed that he left two brake marks of 100 feet and 80 feet approximately and said that although he did not look at his speedometer his speed did not exceed 30 mph.

He denied that he was coming so fast down the bend that, on seeing his path obstructed by the taxi and the van as he came out of the bend, he braked because owing to his speed he could not pull up in time. He said that he followed the taxi all the way round the bend and was out of the bend before the taxi started to brake. He denied that the taxi never stopped,

At this stage, in dealing with his evidence, I would draw attention to the fact that the plan AB1 does not give any indication of the distance between H (the end of the double lines of the bend) and W (the...