Kuan Kian Seng v Wong Choon Keh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 14 February 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 43
• Published date: 20 April 2005
• Year: 1995
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 43
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

KUAN KIAN SENG V. WONG CHOON KEH

Citation:	S2059/1992
	95SC076.DOC
Jurisdiction:	Singapore
Date:	1995:02:14
Court:	High Court
Coram:	K S Rajah JC
Counsel:	Mr Ng Yuen and Ms Ho Wei Sim (Shook Lin & Bok) for the plaintiff.
	Mr Ong Pang Meng (Tang & Partners) for the defendant.

Headnotes:

--

--

Judgment:

Coram: K S Rajah JC

J U D G M E N T

Accident

The plaintiff was a machinist in US Ringbinder (S) Pte Ltd when the accident took place on 25 October 1989. He was riding his motorcycle AZ 5613A along Canberra Road and was proceeding in the direction of Sembawang Shipyard. The defendant was the driver of motor bus PH 776M travelling in the opposite direction (towards the city). The bus was driven onto the plaintiff's side of the two-way because of road works and a collision occurred.

The bus was driven by the defendant onto the plaintiff's side of the road as the defendant was passing through road works that were being done on his side of the road, hitting the plaintiff. The motorcycle was propelled forward and the plaintiff's back hit the utility box on his motorcycle.

Injuries

On admission to Tan Tock Seng Hospital ("TTSH") on 25 October 1989, the plaintiff had the following injuries:-

(a) Burst fracture of LI lumbar vertebra.

(b) Paraplegia with bladder and bowel dysfunction.

(c) Abrasion at right shoulder.

Prior to the surgery, the plaintiff was a paraplegic with bladder and bowel dysfunction. After surgery, the plaintiff underwent rehabilitation and when discharged was able to walk with the assistance of a walking frame. He now walks without walking aids but with an obvious limp.

There was extensive surgery performed with laminectomy and decompression and spinal stabilisation with Luque's rod and Wisconsin wiring fixation. The plaintiff was in hospital for 113 days from 25 October 1989 to 14 February 1990.

The medical reports of 25 January 1991 and 31 July 1992 refer to the injuries. The right shoulder could not be lifted fully. There is a fracture and there are scars on the right neck (6 cm) and the right shoulder (21 cm).

Disabilities

The plaintiff's disabilities are, very briefly:-

(a) Weakness of both legs, mainly in ankles/feet, affecting long distance walking, running and climbing steps; unable to plantar-flex or dorsi-flex ankles; unable to squat because of weakness in hip muscles.

(b) (i) Paraparesis with neurogenic bladder condition -- retention of urine (requiring force to void). This condition requires ultrasonic tests to be done every three months.

(ii) Neurogenic bowel condition -- lax anal sphincter, difficulty in passing motion (requiring frequent enemas and life-long medication).

(c) Poor erection of penis; difficulties in sustaining erection affecting sex life.

(d) Pain and stiffness of lumbar spine with paraspinal spasm; signs of osteo-arthritis.

(e) Walking with an obvious limp.

(f) Scars -- (i) right neck (6 cm); (ii) right shoulder (21 cm); (iii) lumbar spine (21 cm) -- surgical scar.

Future Cost of Medical Care

Dr Robert G Don gave evidence that the plaintiff would require regular check-ups for possible kidney infection in the form of ultrasonology and urinology every three months and lifelong medication for his bowel problems in the form of laxatives, enemas and suppositories. The retention of urine makes bladder infection likely and can occur within five years of the injury and may require surgical treatment. Dr Don also said that surgery may be required to remove the Luque's rod implanted in the plaintiff's spine and that surgical treatment for impotency may also be required. The plaintiff has asked for $10,000 as damages under this head.

Future Complications

The plaintiff's condition was diagnosed as being likely to be permanent and that further improvement was not likely. The future complications given by Dr Robert G Don are:-

(a) Recurrent urinary tract infections affecting the kidneys. (b) Pressure sores affecting the areas of decreased sensation. (c) Chronic constipation. (d) Chronic low back pain. (e) Osteo-arthritis.

Plaintiff's Claim

The plaintiff's claim for pain and suffering and, loss of amenities is for $136,000 made up as follows:-

(i)	Burst fracture of LI
	Penile impotence
	Bladder malfunction
	Loss of movement at ankle	$100,000
(ii)	Bowel malfunction	$ 10,000
(iii)	Osteo-arthritis	$ 10,000
(iv)	Limp	$ 5,000
(v)	Restricted movement of right shoulder	$ 10,000
(vi)	Abrasions and scars	$ 8,000
(vii)	Initial paraplegia	$ 3,000

Total Claim

The total claim under general damages for loss of amenities and pain and suffering is $146,000 but after a discount of 7% made for overlapping, the plaintiff's claim is for $136,000 under this head.

Liability

Liability is disputed. The plaintiff's claim for special damages and future earnings of $246,375.36 computed by using a multiplier of 11 and a multiplicand of $1,836 is also disputed.

It is useful to decide on liability before the merits on quantum are examined.

In his police report made on 26 October 1989, the defendant said the passage was narrow and that before he overtook to his right, there was no traffic from the opposite direction. As he was overtaking, an on-coming motorcyclist (the plaintiff) skidded due to the rain and the slippery road. The plaintiff was flung from his motorcycle and hit against the front right corner bumper of the defendant's bus.

In his affidavit of evidence in chief, the defendant deposed that before he moved to encroach into the lane meant for on-coming traffic, he signalled his intention and saw no on-coming traffic. He stopped to turn very slowly. There was a slight slope upward from the defendant's direction. He had almost gone past the road works and his bus was proceeding slowly on a straight course when a motorcycle suddenly appeared at a fast speed and skidded some distance in front of his bus. The motorcyclist was thrown off and collided into the right front bumper of his bus.

Under cross-examination, the defendant said he was going up a slope and saw the motorcycle suddenly appear in front of his bus. He could not see what was in front of his bus before going up the slope and he could only see what was in front of his bus only after he had gone half-way up the slope and the motorcycle was two car-lengths or more in front of his bus. He admitted to being on the plaintiff's side of the road at that time. When shown photographs of the road, the defendant accepted the fact that there was no slope on the road in the vicinity of the road works but maintained that the slope affected his vision. Even if allowance is made for the use of the word "slope" to mean the road works, it could not have affected his vision having regard to the size of the bus and the position of the driver's seat which is higher than a motorcar.

The plaintiff's case is that he saw the bus about 25 feet or 7.5 metres in front of him before it encroached onto his side of the road. The bus suddenly cut into his side of the road, hitting him on the shoulder. At that time, he was travelling some 25 to 30 feet behind a panel van.

The bus, he admitted, had stopped at the road works. The van had almost passed the bus when the bus went onto the plaintiff's side of the road as he was approaching the man-hole where the road works were being done.

The plaintiff was asked in cross-examination:-

Q: Why should the bus be driven onto your lane when approaching it after it had stopped?

A: I don't know but it could be because the van obstructed the bus driver's view or the bus driver was in a hurry or he misjudged the situation.

Ct: You are speculating?

A: I am answering counsel because it has been put to me for my reason.

.....

Q: How far were you?

A: Point blank. It just came out and hit me on the shoulder.

The plaintiff denied wobbling of the motorcycle, falling off his motorcycle or driving at an excessive speed. I accept the plaintiff's evidence as to how the accident occurred and reject the defendant's version as to how the accident occurred.

I find as a fact that the defendant failed to keep a proper lookout. He drove the bus onto the plaintiff's side of the road without waiting to see if there was any vehicle behind the van and whether it was safe to do so. The bus driver cut into the plaintiff's side of the road, to use the plaintiff's expression "Point blank", and there was nothing the plaintiff could have done to avoid the collision. In the circumstances, although much was made over the fact that it was undisputed evidence that the bus had stopped to let the van pass and that if the bus had stopped to let the van pass, the motorcycle too would have had the right of way. I reject the defendant's evidence and find as a fact that the plaintiff was not travelling at an excessive speed or there was failure by the plaintiff to slow down because of the rain. There was no skidding of the motorcycle. The defendant drove the bus negligently and I find the defendant 100% liable.

Plaintiff's Qualifications

The plaintiff did not complete his secondary 4 education and left school before taking his 'O' Levels. He started as a toolmaker and gradually worked his way up as a estimator/planner/tool room supervisor, production manager, and later worked as a precision machinist and engineer/machine supervisor.

Between 1973 and 1984, the plaintiff took various production courses in wiring, blue-print reading, grinding, milling and turning, woodwork, computer programming, computer numerical control, modern cutting technology, electrical drawing and electrical fitting and installation. The courses that were taken by the plaintiff were paid for out of his own pocket and he attended the courses at night after work hoping to set up his own business.

It is useful to set out the employment history of the plaintiff in a convenient form:-

Employment Table
Date	Position	Company	Salary	Remarks

...