Muthan Sinnathambi v Puran Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 08 May 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 123
• Docket Number: Suit No 1036 of 1988
• Date: 08 May 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Subir Singh Panoo (Ang Netto Rama & Wilson)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 123
• Defendant Counsel: Nirmala Nair (Madhavan Louis & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether defendant motor cyclist liable for pillion rider's death,Death,Liability,Pre-trial and future loss of earnings,Damages,Measure of damages,Estate claim,Solitary evidence of defendant,Whether known bonuses to be included when no evidence given,Accident would not in the ordinary course of things occur,s 7 Civil Law Act (Cap 43),Defendant to rebut inference of negligence,Negligence,Tort,Breach of duty,Appropriate average surplus to be applied where lower CPF rate applies,Application of res ipsa loquitur maxim

Cur Adv Vult

In the early evening on 31 January 1987, the deceased was a pillion rider on a motor cycle ridden by the defendant along Old Jurong Road in the direction of Hong Kah Road when the motor cycle went off the road and collided into a tree. The deceased was killed.

Arising from this accident, the plaintiff, who is the father of the deceased, brought an action as administrator of the estate of the deceased for the benefit of the estate under s 7 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43) (`the Act`) and for the benefit of the dependants of the deceased under s 11 of the Act.

Liability

When the claim came on for hearing, the court was informed that the plaintiff would not proceed on the claim for the benefit of the dependants, and would only pursue the claim for the benefit of the estate. The court was also told that the parties had agreed on the figure of $7,000 as general damages for loss of expectation of life. Agreement had also been reached on special damages for funeral expenses of $2,500 and for costs of letters of administration of $2,200.

Apart from the defendant, there were no other witnesses to the accident. An investigating officer with the Traffic Police, who arrived at the scene at 9.10pm, reported that he found no brake marks or skid marks on the road surface. There were scratch marks on the grass verge, but he could not say how long they were. He made a sketch plan of what he saw, but the defendant had already been sent to hospital by the time he arrived at the scene, and he was unable to interview him until 17 days later.

In this case, there were no witnesses for the plaintiff, but the mere fact that the accident occurred spoke for itself and, in applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur, the court could draw an inference of negligence against the defendant so as to establish a prima facie case against him. The motor cycle was at all times under the defendant`s control and management, and the accident which involved the motor cycle going off the road and colliding into a tree could not have happened in the ordinary course of things without negligence on his part. A burden is therefore cast upon the defendant, and he must show how the accident actually occurred, and how this was consistent with due care on his part. In other words, he must rebut the inference of negligence raised against him: Ooi Han Sun & Anor v Bee Hua Meng [1991] 3 MLJ 219

In his evidence, the defendant said that he was a technician in the Singapore Armed Forces with the rank of Staff Sergeant and the deceased was a clerk who worked under him. On that fateful day he had met the deceased at a mutual friend`s birthday party and was giving him a lift home when the accident occurred. Although a blood sample test showed that the deceased had a blood alcohol concentration of 79mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (almost reaching the presumed incapability limit of 80mg under s 70 of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276)), the defendant claimed that he could not remember having drunk anything at the party. According to him, he had been travelling along Corporation Road and had just turned right into Old Jurong Road. He was riding a powerful 1100cc motor cycle and, as there were no vehicles ahead of him, he had accelerated from a speed of 20 km/h to 50 km/h. When he had gone about 100m along Old Jurong Road, he saw a lorry travelling about another 100m ahead of him. The lorry was moving very slowly and, within another 100m or so, he had caught up to within three to four car lengths behind it, travelling close to the white centre line.

At that moment, a motor pickup suddenly came up to him on his left at a fast speed. It went past him `just by my left knee`, but did not touch him. The pickup then cut across him and squeezed into the space between him and the lorry. To avoid colliding with the pickup, he swerved to his right, and also applied both front and back brakes by pumping them. When he braked and swerved in this manner, he felt the deceased who was on his pillion pulling his T-shirt at the waist, and at the same time the deceased `pulled and pulled my left arm`, a movement which he demonstrated to the court. As a result, the motor cycle went off onto the grass verge on the right and collided into a tree. The pickup did not stop.

This then was the account of the accident by the defendant who was the only witness to it. It was also the basis of the claims in...