Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC
• Judgment Date: 21 July 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 128
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jimmy Yap Tuck Kong (Ngaw Tan and Yap)
• Published date: 25 July 2005
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Abdul Salim A Ibrahim (Assomull and Partners)
• Subject Matter: Evidence,Weight of evidence,Pedestrian hit by bus at pedestrian crossing at traffic junction,Two diametrically opposed versions of accident,Whether plaintiff's or first defendant's version objectively more probable,Tort,Negligence,Contributory negligence,Pedestrian attempting to cross without checking whether safe to cross,Whether pedestrian guilty of contributory negligence,Apportionment of liability between bus driver and pedestrian,Section 3(1) Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed)

21 July 2005

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC:

Introduction

1 Truth, it has been said, is stranger than fiction. This is nowhere better exemplified than in the present proceedings. Indeed, if a label were necessary, the entire saga could not inappropriately be entitled “Of Stray Dogs and Accidents”. As we shall see, it would not be inaccurate to add “, With Experts” as well.

2 It was a clear night along Tampines Avenue 10 on 8 September 2003 at approximately 9.15pm. The plaintiff had just completed what appeared to be a regular jog around Bedok Reservoir and was returning to his company premises. He had presumably done this numerous times before. Tonight, he also had two “companions”. They were two stray dogs that had somehow become “part” of the company in which he worked. They were in fact two of a larger group of approximately six dogs. In the nature of things, they belonged to no particular person, let alone the company. Not formally, in any event. But they had a “relationship” of sorts with the company and were, in fact, periodically fed and even bathed by employees in the company (albeit not by the plaintiff).

3 The dogs in question obviously recognised the plaintiff. Indeed, he stated that when the dogs spotted him going for a jog, they would occasionally “accompany” him. This was one such occasion. As we shall see, one of them is alleged to have played a crucial role in the present proceedings – at least in so far as the defendants are concerned.

4 So much by way of a brief prologue. The actual events which are the subject matter of the present hearing are unfortunate in more ways than one. This should not be surprising as this case involved a traffic accident.

5 There are, not surprisingly once again, two versions of the accident in question. Both are of course diametrically opposed to each other. What is clear is that the accident involved an SBS Transit Bus (“the bus”, which was driven by the first defendant) and a pedestrian (the plaintiff), as well as one of the stray dogs. The bus had collided into both pedestrian and dog at a traffic controlled junction along Tampines Avenue 10. The issue before the court was whether or not the bus driver or pedestrian or both were at fault.

6 I found that the first defendant was substantially to blame for the accident and apportioned liability in the proportion of 80% to 20% in favour of the plaintiff. The liability of the second defendant, the first defendant’s employer, is therefore also established accordingly and in the same proportion. The defendants are dissatisfied and have appealed against my decision. I now give the detailed reasons for my decision.

The plaintiff’s evidence considered

7 The plaintiff[1] claims that he was just starting to cross Tampines Avenue 10 when the bus concerned failed to stop at the junction in question and negligently collided into him as well as one of the dogs. More importantly, he claims that the traffic lights were green in his favour and red as against the bus.

8 As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained severe injury, especially to his leg. Unfortunately, the dog was killed. The left side of the windscreen of the bus was badly shattered. Fortunately, though, neither the bus driver nor any of the passengers on the bus was injured.

9 According to the plaintiff, he had proceeded to the traffic junction in question and waited for the cars on his side of the road to stop and for the green man to appear before he crossed the road. He had only noticed the bus when he had stepped onto the road; in his words:[2]

When I stepped onto the road proper, I turned and looked toward my right and I saw the bus.

10 The plaintiff also clarified that the cars in the other two lanes had already stopped when he first saw the bus which was travelling in the extreme left lane. He also stated that the bus was approximately 8m away from him when he first saw it. He further stated that the bus was coming at him at a very fast speed.

11 When asked by counsel for the defendants, Mr Salim, why with the bus about 8m away when he (the plaintiff) first saw it travelling at a fast speed, he thought it would stop, the plaintiff replied thus:[3]

Because the cars in the first and second lanes had stopped and the green man had come on, so it had to stop.

12 The plaintiff admitted, under cross-examination by counsel for the defendants, that whilst looking at the other cars in the other lanes coming to a stop, he did not look at the first lane (the lane in which the bus was travelling and onto which the plaintiff stepped and where the accident took place). In his words, “[w]ithin my scope of vision, there was no car”.

13 More importantly, in answer to counsel for the defendants’ question as to whether or not before he stepped onto the road, he (the plaintiff) had looked to his right towards the first lane, the plaintiff answered “No”.

14 There then followed what, in my view, was an important exchange between counsel for the defendants and the plaintiff, extracts of which are now reproduced:[4]

Q: Before you stepped onto the road, did you look to your right towards lane 1?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because the cars on the second and third lane had stopped and the green man had appeared.

Q: But as a prudent pedestrian, wouldn’t you first check whether all the cars had come to a stop, especially the car which would be closest to you before you start crossing?

A: No.

Q: Can you explain? A prudent pedestrian shouldn’t even look?

A: The cars in the second and third lanes had already stopped and the green man had appeared and that was the time when as a pedestrian I can cross.

Q: If you had looked at lane 1 before crossing, do you agree you could have seen the bus?

A: Yes.

Q: If you had seen the bus which was occupying the lane closest to you, you most probably wouldn’t have crossed the road, right?

A: Yes.

15 Although the plaintiff’s testimony in this regard was detrimental to his case inasmuch as it was clear evidence of contributory negligence on his part, I was impressed by the fact that he, nevertheless, did not attempt to evade counsel for the defendants’ questions. This was, in fact, representative of his basic attitude and demeanour throughout. I found the plaintiff to be straightforward and a witness of truth.

16 Another crucial aspect of this case in general and the plaintiff’s testimony in particular centred on two related aspects – the relationship between the plaintiff and the dead dog and the precise actions of the dog, respectively. Both these aspects are inextricably linked together and are best described as well as analysed as a whole.

17 I note, at the outset, that the fact that the plaintiff did not attempt in any way to evade this issue with respect to his relationship with the dog confirms my earlier observations to the effect that he was a reliable witness of truth. Indeed, when I asked him if he recognised this particular dog, he answered in the affirmative, stating that the various dogs could be distinguished by their different shapes and colours.[5]

18 It is clear from the evidence that there were various degrees of relationship between the other employees of the plaintiff’s company (including the plaintiff) on the one hand and the group of stray dogs which considered that company a “home” of sorts on the other. For example, some employees would even go to the extent of giving the dogs concerned periodic baths.[6]

19 The plaintiff’s own relationship with the dogs was somewhere in-between. He mentioned that, on occasion, albeit not always, one or more dogs might follow him when he jogged (as was this case on this particular occasion).[7] He also mentioned that he would occasionally give them food. Specifically, in answer to my question to clarify what his relationship was with the dogs, the plaintiff replied, “If there is leftover food, I will give it to them.”[8] Would this, however, entail the plaintiff risking his life chasing after the dog who suddenly (as the first defendant alleged) dashed across the road?

20 I have dwelt on the relationship between the plaintiff and the dogs, particularly in the context of his jogging routine, at some length because it is the defendants’ (in particular, the first defendant’s) case that the plaintiff had dashed out suddenly onto the road and into the path of the bus that he (the first defendant) was driving, against the traffic lights, in order to chase after (and save) the dog which had dashed out onto the same road moments earlier.

21 The relationship between the plaintiff on the one hand and the stray dogs (in particular, the dead dog) on the other is therefore a crucial link in this particular case. This did not, however, seem to me to be a relationship that would entail the plaintiff risking his life chasing after the dog who suddenly (as the first defendant alleged) dashed across the road. Besides, the dog was not on a leash. It was, after all, a stray dog. There was some mention of a collar but the evidence here was inconclusive although I am of the view that it was, in any event, by no means a collar that contained a dog licence. Again, it bears repeating that this was a stray dog. Hence, logic and common sense lead to the inexorable conclusion that the dogs in general and the dead dog in particular were allowed to do as they wished.

22 Indeed, it would not be stretching one’s imagination to say that, if the defendants were right in their allegation with respect to the plaintiff’s self-sacrificial love for the dogs, the plaintiff must have risked his life many times for the sake of the dog’s safety on the roads and it is incredible that he had not hitherto met with an accident. If, in fact, the plaintiff had been so solicitous of the dogs’ safety, he ought to have put them on a leash each time they accompanied him for a jog. But what if, as the plaintiff himself stated, there was more than one dog (which the first defendant himself alleged to be the situation here)? More...