Ong Shoo Chu and another v Chew Zong Xian Ivan

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeTan May Tee
Judgment Date18 January 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] SGDC 5
CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDistrict Court Suit No S 693 of 2018
Year2021
Published date18 March 2021
Hearing Date10 November 2020,08 July 2020,24 November 2020,02 December 2020,07 July 2020
Plaintiff CounselMr Edwin Sim (Lexton Law Corporation),Mr Chong Thian Choy (GH LLC)
Defendant CounselMr Ramesh Appoo (Just Law LLC) the defendant,Ms Lim Huiying (Legal Solutions LLP)
Subject MatterTort,Negligence,Breach of duty
Citation[2021] SGDC 5
District Judge Tan May Tee: Introduction

In the early hours of 23 August 2015, Jason Tan Jia Sheng (“the Deceased”) then 22 years old, was riding his motorcycle when it collided into the rear of the defendant’s car. The collision caused the Deceased together with his pillion rider, one Alicia Lai Jia Yi, to be flung onto the road. Both of them sustained multiple severe injuries, were rendered unconscious and taken to hospital. The Deceased died shortly thereafter.

This action is brought by the parents of the Deceased against the defendant to claim damages for pain and suffering on behalf of the Deceased’s estate as well as their loss of dependency arising from the tragic and untimely death of the Deceased. At the time of his death, the Deceased was a full-time regular serviceman with the Singapore Armed Forces.

The trial of the action was bifurcated. The issue of liability was tried before me with the plaintiffs calling three witnesses comprising two friends of the Deceased who were riding behind him at the time of the accident, namely one Sim Beng Hui aka Noven Sim (“PW1”) and one Trixilea Low Si Yin (“PW2”), and an accident reconstructionist, one Dr Michael Tay Ming Keong (“PW3”) of The Forensic Experts Group. The defendant also called three witnesses – himself (“DW1”), his wife, Toh May Ya (“DW2”) and one Liaw Leong San (“DW3”) of Pro-Option Services, another accident reconstructionist.

Background facts

The Deceased had met with a group of six friends on the evening of Saturday 22 August 2015 for a game of bowling at the Orchid Country Club in Yishun. After their bowling session ended at around 2.00am the next morning, they decided to head to the home of one of the group, one Adrian Lai, at Woodlands Avenue 4. The seven of them were riding on five motorcycles in all. The Deceased and Noven Sim carried a pillion passenger each – Alicia Lai rode on the Deceased’s motorcycle while Trixilea Low rode on Noven Sim’s motorcycle1.

The route they intended to take was to travel along Yishun Avenue 1, Yishun Avenue 6, Yishun Avenue 7, Gambas Avenue, then turn left to Woodlands Avenue 12, followed by a right turn to Woodlands Avenue 52. At the junction of Woodlands Avenues 5 and 6 (“the Junction”), they were supposed to turn right into Woodlands Avenue 6, thereafter turn left into Woodlands Ring Road to reach the car park at Adrian Lai’s home situated in Woodlands Avenue 4.

PW1 was initially at the front of the group. Along Woodlands Avenue 12, the Deceased overtook him and from then on, the Deceased was riding ahead of his friends with PW1 following behind him.

At around the same time, the defendant was driving his car, a matte grey Lexus IS250 bearing registration number SJT8171M, along Gambas Avenue and had also turned into Woodlands Avenue 12 followed by Woodlands Avenue 5. He was then heading home to Woodlands Drive 50 with his wife, Toh May Ya (“DW2”), seated in the front passenger seat.

According to the defendant and his wife, they had left their friend’s house at Braddell Heights and had intended to take the Central Expressway (“CTE”) and exit into Seletar Expressway (“SLE”) to get to Woodlands Drive 50. However, before reaching the SLE, because of some ongoing roadworks along the CTE, the defendant then decided to take a detour by exiting at Seletar West Link and driving into Yishun to reach Woodlands Drive 50. As their son was unwell, they wanted to wanted to get home quickly to give him his medication3. They first noticed the group of motorcyclists at the junction of Sembawang Road and Gambas Avenue. After Gambas Avenue, they travelled along the same route as the motorcyclists until the Junction. The defendant’s intended path of travel was to go straight after the Junction towards Woodlands Avenue 9.

As would be expected at that time of the morning, the traffic along the path of travel of the party of motorcyclists and the defendant was light.

After turning right into Woodlands Avenue 5 from Woodlands Avenue 12, as the vehicles approached the Junction, the traffic light turned red. Woodlands Avenue 5 has five lanes of travel as the vehicles approached this particular Junction4. The leftmost lane allows vehicles to filter left before the traffic lights while the rightmost lane requires vehicles to turn right into Woodlands Avenue 6.

The defendant had stopped his car on the third lane from the right meant for vehicles going straight. The Deceased stopped his motorcycle on the second lane from the right which allows one to go straight or to turn right. The Deceased’s motorcycle was positioned on the right side of the defendant’s car. The Deceased’s friends had also stopped their motorcycles behind the Deceased’s, with PW1 being the one closest to him.

When the traffic light turned green, the defendant’s car proceeded straight. The Deceased, instead of turning right to Woodlands Avenue 6 as originally agreed with his friends, also went straight along Woodlands Avenue 5. Across the Junction after the traffic light, Woodlands Avenue 5 was reduced to three lanes. The defendant’s car was in the middle lane (“Lane 2”) while the Deceased’s motorcycle was seen travelling on the rightmost lane (“Lane 1”).

After leaving the Junction, both the defendant and the Deceased first travelled at around 40 km/h. They then accelerated and travelled at high speeds of 80 km/h to 100 km/h, exceeding the speed limit of 60 km/h for that particular road. The Deceased’s motorcycle was seen to be moving from Lane 1 to Lane 2 and Lane 3 behind the defendant’s car. At around the intersection of Woodlands Avenue 5 and Woodlands Drive 53, the defendant’s car was seen to swerve abruptly to the left lane with its brake lights coming on momentarily before swerving back to Lane 2. Almost immediately after the movement of the defendant’s car towards the left, the Deceased’s motorcycle was seen to flip upwards into the air throwing both the Deceased and his pillion rider onto the road.

An ambulance was called to the scene and conveyed the Deceased and his pillion rider, both unconscious, to the hospital. Despite efforts to resuscitate him, the Deceased succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead at 4.16am on 23 August 20155. A coroner’s inquiry in 2017 had found the death of the Deceased to be a tragic traffic misadventure6.

Plaintiffs’ case

In their Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1), the plaintiffs had pleaded7 that upon the traffic light turning green, both the Deceased and the defendant had proceeded straight towards Woodlands Avenue 9. The Deceased rode his motorcycle behind the defendant’s car and moved from the right lane to the centre and then to the left-most lane. After both the defendant and the Deceased were near or had just passed the intersection of Woodlands Avenue 5 and Woodlands Drive 53, the defendant swerved from the centre lane to the left lane at a fast speed. He then applied the brakes of his vehicle for a quick moment even though there were no vehicles in front of his car or no obvious reason to apply its brakes, and then swerved back to the centre lane. This action by the defendant had caused the Deceased to collide into the defendant’s car and then lose control of his motorcycle which then flipped upwards, hit onto the roadside kerb and fell back onto the road.

It appeared from the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) that their case was premised on the collision between the Deceased’s motorcycle and the defendant’s car having occurred on Lane 3 of Woodlands Avenue 5. After parties had filed their respective closing submissions, the plaintiffs applied to amend their statement of claim to include an alternative version of the collision between the defendant’s car and the Deceased’s motorcycle having taken place while the motorcycle was in the centre lane. The amendment was to include the following additional paragraph8:

Notwithstanding that both parties had closed their respective cases, I allowed the amendment as I agreed with Mr Sim, counsel for the plaintiffs, that the amendment sought was merely to regularise the pleadings in line with the evidence which had been adduced at the trial. I had noted in Mr Sim’s closing submissions that in his summary9 of the evidence of the manoeuvres of the Deceased’s motorcycle and the defendant’s car, the collision between the defendant’s car and the Deceased’s motorcycle had likely taken place while both vehicles were in the centre lane of Woodlands Avenue 5 and not the left lane.

The plaintiffs’ case is that the collision which resulted in the death of the Deceased was caused solely, and/or contributed to, by the negligence of the defendant in the driving and/or management and/or lack of control of the car. While a litany of particulars have been pleaded setting out the manner in which the defendant is alleged to have been negligent, the pith of the plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant’s act of swerving and braking of his vehicle in front of the Deceased’s motorcycle for no obvious reason had caused the collision for which the defendant must be held substantially liable.

Defendant’s case

The defendant denied any negligence on...

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