Li Gaiyun suing as the administrator of the estate of Ma Dewu, deceased v Chan Wei Lun Allan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Seah Chi Ling
• Judgment Date: 11 March 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGDC 53
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DC 1394 OF 2011, HC/DCA 2 of 2015
• Published date: 02 April 2015
• Year: 2015
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2015,06 November 2014,16 January 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr CK Teo [M/s CK Teo & Co] - Plaintiff
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Willy Tay [M/s Ari, Goh & Partners] - Defendant
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Motor Accident
• Citation: [2015] SGDC 53

District Judge Seah Chi Ling: Introduction

The Plaintiff is the widow of Ma Dewu (the “deceased”), and the administrator of the deceased’s estate. The present claim arises from a road accident involving the deceased’s bicycle and the Defendant’s car which resulted in the deceased’s demise. At the end of trial, I found the Defendant to be liable to the extent of 15% of the damages to be assessed. The Defendant is not satisfied with my decision and has lodged an appeal. The Plaintiff did not cross-appeal.

Background facts

The deceased was a Chinese citizen, and was 42 years old at the time of his death. He had worked as a machine operator in Singapore for close to two years prior to his untimely demise.

On 21 May 2009, at about 6.47 am., the deceased was cycling to work when he was involved in a road traffic accident with motor vehicle SJG 4966G (the “car”) driven by the Defendant along Lorong 8 Geylang in the direction of Geylang Road. The relevant stretch of Lorong 8 Geylang was a single lane, one-way road, with kerb side parking on the left. It was a straight road with a prescribed speed limit of 50 km/h. At the time of the accident, there was a row of stationary vehicles parked on the left side of the road. Somewhere near lamppost no. 6, the Defendant’s car collided with the deceased’s bicycle when the deceased rode his bicycle out from one of the left side lanes of Lorong 8 Geylang. It was not disputed that the side lane which the deceased came out from had a halt sign and a stop line. Upon impact, the deceased and his bicycle fell onto the road. The Defendant’s car came to a complete stop slightly further ahead.

As a result of the accident, the deceased bled from his nose but was conscious. When the ambulance arrived at the accident scene, the deceased refused to be taken to the hospital. The deceased then stood up and cycled off. The Defendant was not injured in the accident.

Later on the same day at 9.00 am, when the deceased did not turn up for work, his employer went to his living quarters and found him lying inside, weak but conscious. After learning that the deceased was earlier involved in a road traffic accident, his employer called for an ambulance. The deceased was conveyed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for medical treatment.

On 26th May 2009, 5 days after the road traffic accident, the deceased succumbed to his head injuries and was pronounced dead at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital Ward. The cause of death was certified as Bronchopneumonia due to contused brain from a fractured skull. The injuries were consistent with those sustained from a road traffic accident.

The trial before me was bifurcated. For the purposes of the present trial on liability, the Defendant did not raise any arguments as to how the deceased’s refusal to seek immediate treatment ought to affect any finding of liability on the Defendant’s part.

Plaintiff’s case

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was negligent in causing the accident by, inter alia, failing to keep a proper lookout and colliding into the deceased’s bicycle.

As the cyclist had passed away, and the Plaintiff did not personally witness the accident, the Plaintiff could only rely on various findings and/or statements made or recorded in the course of the traffic police investigations and the Coroner’s Inquiry to support her claim against the Defendant.

One of the key evidence relied upon the Plaintiff was a written statement given by one Mr Chan Wing Cheong (“Mr Chan”), an independent witness to the accident. Mr Chan had, according to the Plaintiff’s counsel, passed away prior to the trial of this action (for reasons not related to the accident). Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant’s counsel raised any issues with respect to the admissibility of Mr Chan’s statement. In fact, both counsel sought to rely on Mr Chan’s statement.

The Independent Witness’ Account

Mr Chan was having breakfast at a coffee shop along Lorong 8 Geylang near the accident scene when he witnessed the accident. In his statement, Mr Chan stated, among other things, the following: (i) at the time of the accident, the Defendant was travelling at normal speed; (ii) the deceased was coming out of a small side lane behind a big stationary lorry, and was joining into the main road, when the accident happened; (iii) the front portion of the deceased’s bicycle was hit by the front left of the Defendant’s car; and (iv) the collision happened very suddenly - he did not hear any horning sounds, and the Defendant also did not have the chance to apply his brakes.

As Mr Chan’s statement is a key piece of evidence relied upon by the parties, I have reproduced the material portions of his statement in full below: “3 On the 21/5/2009 (Thursday) at about 6.25 am, I was the [sic] 218-D coffee shop along Lorong 8 Geylang. I was there having my breakfast alone after sending poultry goods to the same coffee shop. ….. As I was smoking and was facing the approaching traffic along Lorong 8 Geylang, my coffee came to my table. I then saw an approaching car (referring to SJG4966G) along Lorong 8 Geylang travelling towards Geylang Road. The said car was travelling at a normal speed. I could not estimate the travelling speed of the said car however that car could not go fast, as the road is narrow and is a one-way road. At the same time, I also noticed a lorry just parked infront of the backlane of the left side of the road allowing foreign Indian and Bangladeshi workers to alight. Behind this lorry, there was a row of parked vehicles on the left side of the road, as there are kerb side parkings on the left side. I then saw a pedal cyclist coming out from behind the big lorry and joining into the main road of Lorong 8 Geylang. At the same time the earlier car also came resulting in a collision. 4 I saw the front portion of the bicycle being hit by the front left of the said car. Upon impact, the bicycle that was ridden by the pedal cyclist flipped forward and rolled forward. I also saw the said pedal cyclist together with his bicycle being flipped over. The pedal cyclist head hit onto the road and I saw blood coming out from his nose. The said pedal cyclist was alone and he is a male Chinese seems like a China worker. The said car also came to a stop slightly ahead after the collision and the pedal cyclist was at the left rear side.

………..

6 At the time of the road traffic accident, the weather was fine, road surface was dry and the visibility was only slightly dark but it was clear. The traffic flow along Lorong 8 Geylang heading towards Geylang Road near the coffee shop was light. 7 I would like to add that at the time of accident, the left side of the road along Lorong 8 Geylang was fully parked with vehicles. I did not notice if there was any lights on the said bicycle at the time of the accident. The collision happened too suddenly. I did not hear any horning sound. When the collision happened, the driver also did not have the chance to apply brakes. There was another female front seat passenger inside the car. ….” (emphasis added)

The Plaintiff did not appear to contend that the Defendant should be fully liable for the accident, given that the deceased was coming out of a minor road at the material time. However, relying on Mr Chan’s account that it was the front portion of the deceased’s bicycle that was hit by the front left of the Defendant’s car, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant should bear some fault for the accident, in particular, for failing to keep a proper look out.

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant was interviewed by the police and provided his police statement only 5 days after the accident, after the deceased passed away in hospitalⁱ. His vehicle was inspected by the police, and photographs taken, on that occasionⁱⁱ. The Defendant testified at trial that he was travelling straight at a slow speed along Lorong 8 Geylang when he heard a “bang” coming from his left side. At the material time, he had a female front seat passenger, whom he could no longer locate. The Defendant claimed that the deceased had “dashed out from [his] left and collided into the left front passenger door of the car”. He stated in his affidavit that his left wing mirror was damaged by the impact. According to him, the deceased’s bicycle was at no time travelling beside his car or in front of his carⁱⁱⁱ. It was the deceased who collided into him, and not the other way round^iv. The Defendant’s defence in essence was that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the accident.

The Defendant relied on, among other things, the following 2 pieces of evidence: (i) an investigation report prepared by the Traffic Police; and (ii) the findings made by the Coroner at a Coroner’s Inquiry convened in respect of the death of the deceased.

Traffic Police Investigation Report

An investigation report was prepared by the Investigation Officer, one SI Rami bin Mohd Yusof (“SI Yusof”), in respect of the accident^v. SI Yusof was not called as a witness at trial. It was common ground that SU Yusof had left the police force and could no longer be located. Again, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant’s counsel raised any issues with respect to the admissibility of SI Yusof’s report.

In his report, SI Yusof made the following observations: (i) The deceased had encroached into the path of the Defendant when the deceased cycled out from one of the back lanes on the left side of Lorong 8 Geylang near lamppost no. 6 into the main road of Lorong 8 Geylang^vi; (ii) there was a row of stationary parked vehicles on the left side of Lorong 8 Geylang^vii; (iii) the deceased had cycled in between these stationary parked vehicles^viii; (iv) there were no light and reflector fixed on the bicycle^ix; and (v) the front tyre of the deceased’s bicycle was bald^x.

The Coroner’s findings

The Defendant also relied on the findings made by the Coroner, who recorded...