Lee Ngiap Hoon v Teo Sin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Phai Cheng JC
• Judgment Date: 29 June 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 88
• Date: 29 June 1991
• Subject Matter: Road accident,Fatal accident,Defendant's failure to rebut inference,Measure of damages,Prima facie case,Negligence,Pain and suffering,Damages,Estate and dependency claim,Causation,Inference of negligence,Personal injuries cases,Appropriate multiplier and multiplicand,Loss of earnings for 'lost years',Use of police report as evidence of admission of accident,s 8 Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Assessment of damages,Tort,More probable that it was defendant's negligence
• Docket Number: Suit No 2680 of 1986
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Roy Monoj Kumar (Kong Chai & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ong Tiang Choon (Ong Tiang Choon & Co)

Cur Adv Vult

On 26 June 1983 at or about 1.10pm, one Lee Kok Chye (the deceased) was riding his motor cycle No AW8990G along Kampong Bahru Road towards the direction of Jalan Bukit Merah when he met with an accident in front of No 522 Kampong Bahru Road, Cold Storage quarters. He suffered injuries and was taken to the Singapore General Hospital where he died on 27 June 1983 at or about 3.45pm. The deceased`s death certificate (PB5) states that the cause of death was (a) a lacerated brain and (b) a fractured skull. At the time of his death the deceased left behind a father aged 51 years and a mother aged 47 years. The deceased was a bachelor, aged 24 years, at the time of his death . A sketch plan of the accident made by Sgt Teoh Hin Huat of the traffic accidents investigation section of the Traffic Police shows that the deceased`s motor cycle was lying on its offside at the entrance leading to the gate of No 522 Kampong Bahru Road, Cold Storage quarters. The said sketch plan shows that the motor cycle was lying just outside the left edge of Kampong Bahru Road as one faces the direction of Jalan Bukit Merah.

The deceased`s father, Lee Ngiap Hoon (the plaintiff), as the administrator of the estate of the deceased, brought this action against the defendant claiming damages for the benefit of the dependants of the deceased as well as damages for the benefit of the estate of the deceased under the Civil Law Act (Cap 30, 1970 Ed).

The case for the plaintiff as pleased in para 2 of his statement of claim is as follows:

On 26 June 1983, at or about 1.10pm the deceased was lawfully riding his motor cycle No AW8990G along Kampong Bahru Road towards the direction of Jalan Bukit Merah and at or about the gate of No 522 Kampong Bahru Road the defendant drove a motor trailer No X1078T along Kampong Bahru Road in the same direction towards Jalan Bukit Merah too closely to the said motor cycle when passing it that he caused or permitted the same to collide with the deceased and to knock him to the ground thereby resulting in his death.

The plaintiff gave evidence before this court and no other witness was called to adduce evidence for the plaintiff`s case. The plaintiff`s testimony was that his son was killed in a road accident at Kampong Bahru Road at or about 1.10pm. He was told by the police that his son was knocked down by a lorry. His son was riding a motor cycle at that time. After the accident, he saw his son at the hospital. He went to the scene of the accident subsequently and met a Malay man who told him that his son was knocked down by a lorry. The plaintiff said he is not able to find the Malay man since he did not take down the latter`s name and address when he spoke to him. The Malay man cannot be traced now. When the plaintiff went back to the scene of the accident to look for the Malay man, he found that the row of houses which was there at the time of the accident had been demolished.

The plaintiff relied on the police report made by the defendant on 27 June 1983 (PB1-2) as evidence that the defendant`s vehicle was involved in a collision with the deceased`s motor cycle. The said report states, inter alia, that:

On 26 June 1983 at 1330 hours while travelling along Kampong Bahru Road suddenly one m/taxi number, unknown forgotten to take down, came and hon [sic] on me [the defendant]. When I stop, the taxi driver informed me that I had [been] involved in an accident with a m/cycle No 8990 ref unknow[n] (forgotten). I stop my vehicle. I went to the accident scene and found out one m/cycle was lying on [the] road and [the] rider was unconscious later conveyed to hospital by ambulance.

Counsel for the defendant objected to the admissibility of the police report (PB1-3) on the ground that the maker of the report was not called as witness. I overruled the objection on the ground that an order of court dated 19 January 1987 states that the following documents would be admissible in evidence at the trial without calling as witnesses the makers of the documents:

(a) the police report made by the defendant (PB1-2);

(b) the sketch plan together with the legend to the plan made by Sgt Teoh Hin Huat (PB3-4); and

(c) the police damage report dated 15 October 1983 (PB5).

At the close of the plaintiff`s case, counsel for the defendant submitted that there was no case for the defendant to answer as there was no evidence (except the statement of the taxi driver) to show that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant and what the Malay man told the plaintiff was but hearsay evidence. Counsel also submitted that the statement made by the taxi driver who was not called as a witness was admissible as evidence of the fact that the statement was made, but that it was inadmissible, being hearsay, if it was to be evidence of the truth of the statement: see Subramaniam v PP [1956] 1 WLR 965 I then informed the defendant`s counsel that I would not rule on his submission of no case to answer unless he elected not to adduce evidence for the defendant`s case. Counsel then elected to call the defendant to give evidence.

The evidence of the defendant is briefly as follows. On 26 June 1983, he was driving the trailer X1078T from Pasir Panjang in the direction of Tanjong Rhu. It was a Sunday. As he drove along Kampong Bahru Road, a taxi driver sounded his horn and asked him to stop. The taxi driver told him that a motor cycle had collided into the rear of his vehicle. He stopped his vehicle and walked to the scene of the accident to take a look. He walked for about 200ft from where he stopped his vehicle. When he reached the gate of No 522 Kampong Bahru Road, he saw a motor cycle lying at the entrance leading to the gate and the rider lying on the ground. The rider was conscious and moaning and was bleeding from his mouth. The defendant said the rider did not appear to have suffered serious injuries. The defendant did not see him wearing any helmet. Neither did he notice any helmet lying anywhere around.

The police arrived at the scene about 15 minutes later. When the police inquired as to what happened, the defendant told the police what he said in his police report. The police asked for his identity card and took down his particulars. They told him to go to Maxwell Police Station to make a report on the following day. The defendant said in his evidence-in-chief that when he made the police report, he did not think that he had caused the accident because he did not feel any impact on or collision with his vehicle. When he checked his trailer he did not find any damage to his vehicle. He told this court that he made the police report because he was told by the police to do so. The defendant said he did not know how the motor cycle rider fell. Two or three days after the accident he was asked by the police to send his vehicle for inspection. He did not know what the result of the inspection was. The defendant also said that he did not believe the taxi driver when the latter told him that a motor cycle had collided into the rear of his vehicle.

The defendant said he had been driving for more than ten years before the accident. The traffic conditions along Kampong Bahru Road that day were light. It was a Sunday. He said he was driving at a speed of approximately 30km/h. He could not travel fast because his vehicle was loaded with iron bars. The road was dry.

During cross-examination, the defendant said that Kampong Bahru Road had two lanes, one each for traffic travelling in opposite directions. He was driving his vehicle near the left edge of the road, about one or two feet away. When his trailer passed the gate of No 522 Kampong Bahru Road, he did not notice whether there was any other vehicle in front of, beside or behind his trailer. The defendant denied a suggestion that he drove his trailer very close to the edge of the road and that his trailer collided with the motor cycle when his trailer went past the motor cycle.

Liability

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant had, in his police report, made an admission that his vehicle was involved in an accident with the motor cycle AW8990G. A taxi driver had told him that his vehicle was involved in an accident. He did not deny that. He went to the scene and waited for the police. In court, the defendant now says that he did not know of the accident. However, the police sketch plan (PB3) which shows...