Ong Jin Choon v Lim Hin Hock and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 07 June 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 50
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 50
• Subject Matter: Causation,Tort,Damages,Dispute on liability,Assessment,Negligence,Relevant period for quantification of damages,Road accident,Computation of actual loss of earnings,Director of company incapacitated and unable to work
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bala Chandran (Mallal & Namazie)
• Defendant Counsel: Michael Kuah (Lee & Lee),Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Partners)
• Docket Number: Suit No 750 of 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Date: 07 June 1988

Cur Adv Vult

On 5 March 1979 at about 4pm, the plaintiff was waiting for a taxi at the taxi stand in front of the then Singapore Turf Club at Cecil Street. The taxi stand was on the right side of Cecil Street, if one faces the direction of Cross Street and the Multi-Storey Car Park at Cecil Street/Market Street. Cecil Street was at the material time, and is, a one-way street with traffic travelling from Anson Road towards Cross Street and the Multi-Storey Car Park. At the taxi stand, there was a metal railing, and the plaintiff at the time was standing at the front exit looking towards his left from which direction the vehicles were coming. While standing there and waiting for a taxi he saw two vehicles, a taxi and a motorcycle, coming towards him. The taxi was travelling on the second lane (from his side) and the motorcycle was travelling on the right side of the taxi and on the first lane. According to him, the motorcycle was travelling abreast with the taxi. When the taxi was about 20 metres from the plaintiff it swerved to the right towards the taxi stand and collided with the motorcycle and the impact in turn caused the motorcycle to collide with the plaintiff, in consequence of which the plaintiff sustained severe injuries on his left leg. The motorcycle was ridden by the first defendant and the taxi was driven by the second defendant.

The plaintiff brought this action against both the defendants for damages for negligence. His claim was that the collision was caused either solely by the negligence of the first defendant or the second defendant or by the negligence of both of them. Before me the parties agreed on the following: (a) a sum of $9,471.03 as special damages which consisted mainly of medical expenses, and (b) a sum of $17,500.00 as general damages, leaving for trial only two issues, namely, liability and, if any, actual loss of earnings sustained by the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the trial, I held that on the first issue both the defendants were liable to the plaintiff and that the first defendant was one-third to blame and the second defendant two-thirds to blame for the accident, and on the second issue the plaintiff had sustained actual loss of earnings and awarded him a sum of $48,629.19 for the period from the date of accident to 15 July 1980. I therefore gave judgment for the plaintiff in the total sum of $75,600.22 with interest thereon at 6% pa from 1 April 1984 to the date thereof and with costs to the plaintiff, and made the usual consequential orders.

On the issue of liability the dispute was mainly between the first defendant and the second defendant; there was no dispute that either of the defendants or both of them were liable to the plaintiff, the innocent bystander, who sustained injuries arising from the collision between the first defendant`s motorcycle and the second defendant`s taxi. Each of the defendants disputed that the accident was caused or contributed by him. Both the defendants gave evidence.

The first defendant said that at the material time just before the accident he was travelling along Cecil Street from Anson Road. He was on the second lane from the right close to lane one and he saw the taxi driven by the second defendant. The taxi was also on the second lane and the first defendant was...