Mohamed Hashim v Lim Ah Too and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
JudgeChua F A J
Judgment Date13 June 1969
Neutral Citation[1969] SGFC 7
Citation[1969] SGFC 7
Subjectcollision with another car in the opposite direction,Motor accident,Car crossed broken white line in centre of road into lane for cars in the opposite direction,Contributory negligence,Whether driver of car on the correct lane guilty of contributory negligence,Negligence,Tort
Publication Date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselMPD Nair (MPD Nair)
Plaintiff CounselYap Tyou Min (Battenberg & Talma)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No Y54 of 1968
Date13 June 1969

In this case the first plaintiff was at all material times the owner of taxi No SH 2598 which was driven by the second plaintiff along Changi Road near the 121/2 milestone towards the city at about 1.30pm on 12 April 1965 when it came into collision with taxi No SH 4551 which was driven by the first defendant and was travelling in the opposite direction towards Changi Point.

By their statement of claim the plaintiffs alleged that the second defendant was at all material times the owner of taxi No SH 4551. The plaintiffs therefore claimed damages against both the defendants. The learned trial judge awarded the second plaintiff the sum of $1,200 as general damages and the sum of $1,298 as special damages against the first defendant. He also gave judgment in the agreed sum of $4,165 in favour of the first plaintiff against the first defendant. The claim by the first plaintiff against the second defendant was dismissed with costs as no evidence had been given to show that the second defendant was the owner of taxi No SH 4551 or that the first defendant was his servant or agent. The first defendant has now brought this appeal against the judgment of the learned trial judge.

The second plaintiff`s version of the accident was as follows. As he was driving along Changi Road, the first defendant`s taxi, which was travelling in the opposite direction, overtook a moving bus and in doing so went over the broken white line in the centre of the road into his path and collided with his taxi. He first saw the on-coming taxi when it was about 30 feet away. He was then driving along the middle of his side of the road at a speed of about 30 miles per hour. He applied his brakes violently and swerved to the left but was unable to avoid the collision.

The first defendant gave the following version of the accident. As he was driving his taxi along Changi Road to Changi Point he saw the second plaintiff`s taxi approaching him when it was 200 yards away. There was a car 100 yards ahead of him which passed the second plaintiff`s taxi when it was 100 yards away from him. The second plaintiff`s taxi, which was being driven unsteadily, came on to the first defendant`s side of the road. The first defendant applied his brakes but the second plaintiff`s taxi came right in front of him and there was a collision between the two taxis as a result of which the first defendant`s taxi was spun round in a clockwise direction. When the first defendant applied his brakes he was 16 feet away from...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT