Oli Mohamed v Murphy and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGHC 10
• Docket Number: Suit No 181 of 1968
• Date: 18 July 1969
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1969
• Plaintiff Counsel: HE Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1969] SGHC 10
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Kim Seng (Allen & Gledhill)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: No evidence of how accident occurred,Inference to be drawn in absence of such evidence,Admissible only for purpose of impeachment,Negligence,Collision between two vehicles at crossroad resulting in damage to plaintiffÂ’s premises,Hearsay,Tort,Whether interest runs from date of accident or date of payment for repairs,Damages,Admissibility of police reports when maker not called,Defendants not acting in concert each causing same or indivisible damage to plaintiff -Whether each defendant liable for whole amount,Computation,Evidence,Whether prima facie case established against either or both of the drivers,Apportionment,Amount of damages recoverable from each driver,Admissibility of evidence

In this suit the plaintiff claims damages for injury to the plaintiff`s premises alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the first defendant and by the negligence of the second defendant or alternatively by the negligence of one or other of them in the driving of their respective motor vehicles.

The facts are these. The plaintiff is the owner of premises known as No 196 Bencoolen Street, Singapore, hereinafter referred to as `the said premises`. On 29 March 1967 the first defendant drove motor car ST 441 and the second defendant drove motor taxi No SH 2884 so negligently into one another that both vehicles immediately thereafter ran into and collided with and damaged the said premises.

The first defendant did not enter appearance and was absent at the trial. The second defendant was also absent at the trial but was represented by counsel who did not call any witness. The plaintiff did not call any eye witness of the accident. Counsel for the plaintiff attempted to put in evidence the reports made to the police by the first and second defendants but I ruled that these reports were inadmissible under the Evidence Ordinance as the makers of the reports had not given evidence. It is generally not understood that such a report is admissible for the sole purpose of impeaching the credit of the person who made the report and for no other purpose. Hence if the person who made the report does not give evidence at the trial his report is inadmissible. In the result there was no evidence at all before the court as to the circumstances under which the collision took place.

However, it is not in dispute that motor car No ST 441 driven by the first defendant was travelling along Albert Street from the direction of Selegie Road and proceeding towards Queen Street; that taxi No SH 2884 driven by the second defendant was travelling along Bencoolen Street from the direction of Jalan Besar and proceeding towards Bras Basah Road; that the collision between the two vehicles took place at the intersection of Albert Street; and Bencoolen Street and that after the collision both vehicles went off the road and hit the said premises which are on the left side of Bencoolen Street as one faces Bras Basah Road.

Counsel for the second defendant submitted that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff and as he had called no evidence to show how the accident occurred, the claim of the plaintiff should be dismissed. I am unable to accept this submission. If two motor cars collide in the centre of the road, the inference is, in the absence of evidence enabling the court to draw any other conclusion, that the drivers of both were equally to blame, and it is not a proper decision to hold, in the absence of evidence enabling the blame to be fixed upon one driver or the other, that no sufficient case has been established against either. See Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 1472 and Bray v Palmer [1953] 2 All ER 1449. In my opinion the same principle applies in the case of a collision at cross roads.

Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the second defendant should have given the right of way to the first defendant`s car...