Ng Lay Peng v Gain City Engineering & Consultancy Pte Ltd (Ng Peng Boon, third party) (AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, intervener)
Judge | Andrew Ang SJ |
Judgment Date | 23 August 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGHC 184 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 214 of 2015 |
Citation | [2018] SGHC 184 |
Year | 2018 |
Published date | 02 November 2019 |
Hearing Date | 31 May 2017,02 June 2017,01 June 2017,30 May 2017,08 February 2017,01 February 2017,31 January 2017,03 November 2017,02 February 2017,29 May 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Yap Tai San Paul and Janice Han (Vision Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Chua Tong Nung Edwin and Cham Xin Di, Cindy (Lawrence Chua Practice LLC),The third party in person,Yeo Kim Hai Patrick and Tan Mun Yung, Kenneth (KhattarWong LLP) |
Subject Matter | Damages,Measure of damages,Personal injuries cases |
The Plaintiff’s claim is for damages for personal injuries and consequential losses arising from a traffic accident on 25 July 2012.
The Plaintiff was a front seat passenger in the Third Party’s (her husband’s) car.
Consent Interlocutory Judgment was entered at 100% liability against the Defendant with a 25% indemnity from the Third Party.
The Intervener is the motor insurer of the Third Party. It applied to join in these proceedings as an additional party when the Third Party agreed to give evidence as Plaintiff’s witness. This was to enable its counsel to cross-examine the Third Party.
I shall deal with the claims in the following order:
The Plaintiff did have pain in the lower back before the accident although the parties are not agreed as to the extent to which the Plaintiff’s lumbar degeneration was aggravated by the accident (if at all).
The Plaintiff had complained of low back ache to her family physician Dr Chang Chee Chea (“Dr Chang”) on December 2007 and 2008. She was advised to undergo a general screening in April 2008 and a urine culture in May 2008. The latter revealed a urinary tract infection. In oral evidence Dr Chang attributed the low back pain to the urinary tract infection.
An MRI of the lumbar spine revealed degenerated L4/L5 disc with posterior annular tear and degenerated L5/S1 disc with focal left prolapse indenting left S1 nerve root and mild narrowing of left exit foramina.
According to the Plaintiff, since the accident, she has been hospitalised no fewer than 14 times and has undergone fusion surgery to her lower spine.
Dr Hee and Dr Chang Wei Chun (the Defendants’ orthopaedic expert witness) (“Dr WC Chang”) agreed that the Plaintiff’s back condition was aggravated by the accident but they differed as to the extent of such aggravation with Dr Hee suggesting 50% and Dr WC Chang 15% to 20%. Both experts acknowledged that their estimates were merely rough guides.
Dr WC Chang opined that natural degeneration was a greater contributory factor than the aggravation caused by the accident. He gave the following reasons:
The Defendants also challenged the Plaintiff’s assertion that after nucleoplasty she no longer felt pain leading to the suggestion that her subsequent condition was caused mainly by the accident.
In short, Defendants’ submission was that even if there were no accident the Plaintiff would, progressively with age, experience more symptoms of back pain; accordingly, the quantum of damages for aggravation of the back condition could not be the same as that which a healthy person (with no pre-existing back condition) would receive.
A case in point is
On 15 November 2010, the plaintiff, Mr Thomas Teddy, was travelling as a passenger in a taxi when a lorry belonging to the defendant collided into the rear of the taxi. The plaintiff claimed that he did not feel any pain immediately after the accident although he was jerked forward and then flung backwards. Later that evening, he experienced loss of sensation in both his hands and arms.
The plaintiff had suffered a stroke about 11 months earlier on 10 October 2009. He managed to recover from the stroke by December 2009. However, as of March 2010, he began experiencing pain in the neck, weakness in both hands and progressive gait instability. He consulted a neurologist, Dr Tang Kok Foo on 11 May 2010. Dr Tang ordered an MRI of the plaintiff’s spine. It revealed that the plaintiff had disc degeneration at three levels (C3/C4, C4/C5 and C5/C6) with very severe cord compression at the lower two levels. Essentially, he diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from cervical myelopathy and diabetic neuropathy and recommended surgery to stop the cervical myelopathy from getting worse.
The plaintiff consulted a neurosurgeon, Dr PK Pillay for a second opinion on 7 July 2010. Dr Pillay also ordered an MRI and on the basis of the MRI findings, he diagnosed the plaintiff with cervical myelo-radiculopathy and also recommended surgery. On 14 July 2010, Dr Pillay performed an “anterior cervical microdisectomy and fusion for C4/5 and C5/6 significant disc protrusions that were causing the myelo-radiculopathy” (“the first surgery”). According to the plaintiff he felt a dramatic improvement in his condition after the first surgery. He claimed to have completely recovered from the first surgery by October 2010,
The day after the accident, the plaintiff went to see Dr Pillay because he was concerned that the accident might have had an impact on his spine. An MRI of his cervical spine was done on the same day. In the MRI report, the radiologist stated the following:
The plaintiff claimed that he could not feel his hands and that “everything was numb”. Dr Pillay carried out urgent surgery on 26 November 2010. According to the plaintiff, there was little improvement after the surgery. Dr...
To continue reading
Request your trial