Heng Choon Shin Adrian (Wang Junsen Adrian) (suing as the administrator of the estate and dependants of Heng Hock Kim, deceased) v Tan Keh Nguang and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Clement Seah Chi-Ling
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGDC 61
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 3560 of 2018, District Court Appeal No 10 of 2022
• Year: 2022
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Hearing Date: 21 December 2021,01 July 2021,09 December 2021,08 December 2021,13 April 2021,12 October 2021,08 February 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jasjeet Singh s/o Harjindar Singh (Dhillon & Panoo LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Teo Weng Kie and Darryl Quek (Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Motor Accident,Causation,Evidence,Admissibility of evidence,Findings in Coroner's Report
• Citation: [2022] SGDC 61

District Judge Clement Seah Chi-Ling: Introduction

The present case involved a fatal motor accident (the “accident”) between a power-assisted bicycle (“PAB”) ridden by one Heng Hock Kim (the “Deceased”) and a motor tipper owned by Second Defendant and driven by the First Defendant (the Second Defendant’s employee). It was not disputed that Second Defendant would be vicariously liable if the First Defendant were found liable, in whole or in part, for the accident.

The trial before me was bifurcated. At the end of the trial, I found the First Defendant had been negligent in the driving and control of the motor tipper which led to the accident and the Deceased’s demise. I found no contributory negligence on the part of the Deceased and accordingly held the Defendants wholly liable for the accident. The Defendants are dissatisfied with my decision and have filed the present appeal.

Background Facts

The Plaintiff is the son of the Deceased who died on 18 November 2016, and is the Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased pursuant to the Letters of Administration granted by the Singapore Family Justice Courts.

The Plaintiff brought this action for the benefit of: (a) the Estate of the Deceased under Section 10 of the Civil Law Act (Cap. 43) (“the Act”); and (b) all Dependents of the Deceased under Section 20 of the Act and for a claim for bereavement under Section 21 of the Act.

The accident happened on 18 November 2016 at or about 10.15 am along Cecil Street in the direction of Collyer Quay, in front of Republic Plaza. Cecil Street is a one-way road with five lanes. At the material time, the weather was clear, the road surface was dry and the traffic volume was heavy¹.

The Deceased was 62 years of age at the time of his death. He worked as a freelance courier and deliveryman and used the PAB in the course of his work.²

The First Defendant was 54 years of age at the time of the accident and was the driver of motor-tipper vehicle no. XD4187M (the“motor-tipper”). The First Defendant was on his way to collect debris at Equality Plaza for disposal at the Tuas Incineration Plant³ when the accident happened. The First Defendant was driving the motor-tipper as the servant and/or agent of the Second Defendant, the owner of the motor-tipper.

How the accident happened?

At around 10.15am on 18 November 2016, the Deceased was riding his PAB along Cecil Street in the direction of Collyer Quay when there was a collision between the PAB and the motor tipper. As a result of the said collision, the Deceased was knocked down and suffered fatal injuries leading to his death.

Plaintiff’s case

The Plaintiff’s case was that the said collision was caused solely and/or contributed to by the negligence of the First Defendant in the driving and/or management of the motor-tipper.

The Plaintiff’s case theory was that the Deceased was at all material times in front of the motor tipper when the motor tipper negligently collided into the rear of the PAB. As a result of the impact, the PAB and the Deceased toppled over to the right and eventually went underneath the motor tipper and were run over. The Plaintiff contended that this was borne out by the Cecil Street Video (see below) which showed the PAB travelling in front of the motor tipper, near the front left of the tipper, when the front left portion of the motor tipper collided into the back of the PAB.

The Plaintiff’s case was that the First Defendant had been negligent in failing to check his blind spots and had failed to keep a proper look-out or to have any or any sufficient regard for the traffic along Cecil Street. The First Defendant also failed to exercise reasonable care, skill and prudence in the driving of the motor tipper and also failed to keep a proper lookout or maintain a safe distance when approaching the Deceased’s PAB which was on the same road. The accident was consequently caused solely by the negligence of the First Defendant in the driving and management of the motor tipper.

Defendants’ case

The First Defendant denied that the accident was caused by any negligence on his part. The First Defendant averred that he was driving properly and carefully along the left lane of Cecil Street at the material time.

The Defendants’ case was that on 18 November 2016 at about 10.15 a.m., the First Defendant was driving the motor tipper along the extreme left lane of Church Street towards Cecil Street and Collyer Quay. The First Defendant then came to a stop at the traffic light junction of Cecil Street and Church Street where he was the second vehicle in the queue⁴.

When the traffic lights at the traffic junction of Cecil Street and Church Street turned green, the First Defendant moved off and traversed a left bending curve into Cecil Street. The First Defendant estimated his speed to be no more than 30 kmph⁵. The First Defendant testified that his intention was to turn left into D’Almeida Street which was about 90 meters ahead of the abovementioned traffic junction⁶.

As he was proceeding down Cecil Street, the First Defendant claimed he suddenly heard a sound and felt some movement from the rear of the motor tipper. He thought the suspension of the motor tipper had malfunctioned or there might have been a punctured tyre. He had intended to drive further up to park at a safer place before alighting to check on the motor tipper. However, he then heard another sound from the rear of the motor tipper. He then stopped before the junction leading to D’Almeida Street where he was headed. He alighted from his vehicle, walked to the rear of his motor tipper, and was shocked to see a damaged power assisted bicycle and debris strewn along the extreme left lane with a person lying on the road⁷.

The First Defendant stated on affidavit that at all material times prior to the collision, he was unaware of the presence of the PAB. At paragraph 12, the First Defendant stated:

“12. I wish to state that at all material times, I did not see any PAB approaching on my left side or in front of the Second Defendant’s motor tipper.”⁸

Having viewed the video footages played at trial, the First Defendant’s position was that the Deceased had without any warning or signal, cut into the path of the Second Defendant’s motor-tipper causing the collision. He testified that after navigating the curve from Church Street into Cecil Street, because of the structure of the kerb on the left side of the road, the Deceased had “no more road” for him to travel straight. The Deceased thus “came out” into the path of the motor tipper leading to the collision. The First Defendant’s drawing of the road and kerb configuration right after the turn into Cecil Street was admitted as Exhibit D1.⁹

The issues

The issue before me before me involved a single dispute of fact, namely - whether the Deceased had been travelling in front of the motor tipper whilst traversing Cecil Street and the First Defendant had then collided into the rear of the PAB; or whether the PAB had suddenly cut into the path of the motor tipper leaving the First Defendant with no opportunity to avert a collision.

The Evidence

Mr. Heng Choon Shin Adrian, the Administrator of the Deceased’s estate, was the sole witness for the Plaintiff’s case at trial. He conceded he did not witness the accident, nor did he have access to any witnesses. He, however, adduced and relied primarily on two CCTV video footages that captured the fatal accident that were provided by the Land Transport Authority (“LTA”) pursuant an Order of Court dated 12 November 2019 in these proceedings. The two (2) CCTV cameras were located as follows: - The first CCTV camera was located on the left side of Church Street, at the signalized junction of Church Street adjacent to Cecil Street. The first CCTV footage (the “Church Street Video”) was 59 seconds long, and ran from timestamp 10:27:00 to 10:27:59. It captured the motor tipper and the PAB at a much earlier point prior to the collision, i.e. whilst both vehicles were travelling along Church Street. The second CCTV camera was located on the left side of Cecil Street, after D’Almeida Street (the “Cecil Street Video”). It was 1 minute and 15 seconds long, and ran from timestamp 10:27:44 to 10:28:59. It captured: (i) the vehicles at the Church Street signalized junction (including the PAB and the motor tipper) moving into Cecil Street, (ii) the moments leading up to the collision, (iii) the PAB toppling in front of the motor tipper and eventually going underneath it, and (iv) the First Defendant stopping and coming down from the motor tipper to check on his motor tipper.

There was in fact a 3rd CCTV footage which was played at the coroner’s inquiry convened on or around 20 October 2017 (the “Coroner’s Inquiry”). The 3rd CCTV footage was taken from a camera situated at the entrance of the Raffles Place (“RP”) MRT Station facing Cecil Street, which was closer in proximity to the location of impact compared to the Cecil Street Video. Based on the Coroner’s Report, the RP CCTV video captured footages of the moments leading up to the accident from a nearer vantage point compared to the Cecil Street Video. Unfortunately, due to the effluxion of time, copies of the RP video footages were no longer available. This court therefore had to rely primarily on the Church Street Video and the Cecil Street Video tendered at trial.

The Church Street Video

As mentioned, the Church Street Video captured the motor tipper and the PAB prior to the motor tipper and the PAB turning into Cecil Street.

The Church Street Video showed the First Defendant travelling along the extreme left lane along Church Street in the direction of Cecil Street. The First Defendant then came to a stop before the signalized junction of Church Street at around timestamp [10:27:01] as the traffic lights had turned red for vehicles travelling along Church Street in the direction of Cecil Street....