Pakkirisamy Muthulakshmi v Narayanan Murugesan and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Samuel Wee
• Judgment Date: 09 October 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 234
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 712 of 2022
• Hearing Date: 20 July 2023,25 September 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 234
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Namasivayam Srinivasan (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: The First Defendant absent and unrepresented,Tan Seng Chew Richard and Calvin Sirisereepaph @ Calvin Tan Wen Jiang (Tan Chin Hoe & Co)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Duty of care,Whether the driver of a parked vehicle owes a duty of care,Whether the driver of parked vehicle breached his duty of care,Nuisance,Whether an illegally parked vehicle gives rise to an actionable nuisance,Whether liability can be apportioned between Defendants when there were no contribution proceedings
• Published date: 22 December 2023

District Judge Samuel Wee: Introduction

This action relates to a collision that occurred on 15 April 2019 (“Collision”) along Pioneer Crescent, a two-lane road with one lane in each direction.

The First Defendant, Narayanan Murugesan, was driving a lorry (“Lorry”) along Pioneer Crescent when his path was obstructed by a prime mover with an attached empty chassis (“Semi-Trailer Truck”) belonging to the Fifth Defendant, Tepiaob Trading & Transport Services Pte. Ltd. The Semi-Trailer Truck was parked on the double zig-zag lines along the road by its driver – the Fourth Defendant, Kolanchiappan Srinivasan, who was an employee and authorised driver of the Fifth Defendant at the time.¹ The First Defendant tried to drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck from the right and in doing so encroached onto the opposite lane facing oncoming traffic. Unfortunately, before he could /drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck, the First Defendant steered the Lorry back into its original lane and collided into the Semi-Trailer Truck.

As a result of the Collision, the Plaintiff, who was a front-seat passenger in the Lorry, suffered injuries. She therefore commenced this action.

The Second Defendant and Third Defendant were initially named as parties to the suit on the assumption that they were the owners of the Lorry. However, the Plaintiff subsequently discontinued the action against them.²

Facts

The Plaintiff is an Indian national. She was 40 years old and working as a foreign domestic worker at the time of the Collision.

It is not disputed that the Collision happened, with the front left of the Lorry colliding into the rear right portion of the empty chassis of the Semi-Trailer Truck. According to the Fourth Defendant, around 30-40% of the left side of the Lorry was damaged.³

The Plaintiff’s claim against the First Defendant is for negligence with regards to his driving, management and control of the Lorry;⁴ the Fourth Defendant for negligence and nuisance in relation to his stopping or parking the Semi-Trailer Truck on the double zig-zag lines along the road;⁵ and the Fifth Defendant for vicarious liability vis-à-vis the Fourth Defendant’s negligence and nuisance.⁶

The First Defendant has not participated in the proceedings. In light of the Collision, he was previously charged for causing grievous hurt to the Plaintiff by doing an act so negligently as to endanger human life under section 338(b) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to fifteen days imprisonment on 3 March 2020.⁷

According to the Fourth Defendant, he parked the Semi-Trailer Truck along the road so that he could use the toilet.⁸ However, before he could get to the toilet, he heard a loud noise and realised that the Lorry collided into the Semi-Trailer Truck. He therefore did not actually see the Collision take place.⁹

The Fourth and Fifth Defendants dispute liability and take the position that the Collision was solely caused by the negligence of the First Defendant.

From a procedural perspective, it is critical to note that the Fourth and Fifth Defendants did not file a formal claim to seek contribution from the First Defendant under sections 15 and 16 of the Civil Law Act 1909.

Issues to be determined

The first issue is whether the Plaintiff has established her case against the First Defendant for negligence. While the First Defendant did not enter an appearance in the proceedings, the Plaintiff did not obtain judgment in default of appearance. I therefore proceeded with the trial in the absence of the First Defendant pursuant to the inherent powers of the Court (Transasia Private Capital Ltd (in its capacity as manager, for and on behalf of Asian Trade Finance Fund, a sub-fund of TA Asian Multi-Finance Fund) v Todi Ashish [2021] SGHC 39 at [13]; UCO Bank, Singapore Branch v Green Mint Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 72 at [20]).

The second issue is whether the Fourth Defendant is liable for negligence or nuisance by parking the Semi-Trailer Truck along the road and obstructing traffic in the process. The outcome of this finding has a direct impact on the Fifth Defendant, who would be vicariously liable for the Fourth Defendant’s negligence or nuisance.

First Issue – The First Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for negligence

As the Plaintiff’s claim against the First Defendant is based on negligence, the following must be established (see CXN (a minor suing by her father and litigation representative) v CXO and another [2022] SGHC 311 at [12]): the existence of a duty of care; breach of the duty of care; a causal connection between the First Defendants’ breach and the Plaintiff’s damage; and the Plaintiff’s damages was not so unforeseeable as to be too remote.

The First Defendant breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff

A motorist owes a duty of care to other road users to keep a proper look-out and to drive with reasonable care with due regard to the specific traffic circumstances (Goh Yang Hui (committee of the person and estate of Chua Jie Liang Samuel, mentally disordered) v Soon Teck Soon [2013] SGHC 67 at [9]). The standard of care to be expected is that of a reasonable person using ordinary care and skill in the circumstances (Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd v Moh Seng Cranes Pte Ltd and others [2014] 2 SLR 360 at [43]).

The facts relating to how the Collision happened, are necessary to determine whether the First Defendant breached his duty of care.

The Plaintiff’s account of the Collision is set out in her affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”). In her AEIC, she states that the Collision occurred near 25 Pioneer Crescent where there were double yellow zig-zag lines along the road. The First Defendant drove onto the opposite lane facing oncoming traffic to try to drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck from the right, but swerved back to the left into his own lane when he realised that a vehicle was travelling towards him.¹⁰ This resulted in the front left side of the Lorry colliding into the rear right side of the Semi-Trailer Truck; and a metal part of the Semi-Trailer Truck piercing through the Lorry and injuring the Plaintiff’s leg.¹¹

I accept the Plaintiff’s evidence that the Collision took place with the front left of the Lorry colliding into the rear right portion of the empty chassis of the Semi-Trailer Truck resulting in her leg being injured. This was something that she personally experienced and had first-hand knowledge of.

However, I was not able to rely on the Plaintiff’s evidence on what the road conditions were just before the Collision. As pointed out by the Fourth and Fifth Defendants’ counsel, the Plaintiff’s account of the Collision appears to have been reproduced from the contents of a Police Report that was filed by the First Defendant.¹² In this regard, it was apparent from the answers she gave during cross-examination that it is more likely than not that she was not paying attention to and was not aware of what was happening on the road just before the Collision happened. Two critical examples that support my view are as follows: First, as to when she first saw the Semi-Trailer Truck, the Plaintiff gave at least four different answers over a short span of time. According to her, she saw it from either: (i) 30m away;¹³ (ii) just when the Collision happened;¹⁴ (iii) 10m away;¹⁵ or (iv) 3m away.¹⁶ These answers were inconsistent and could not be rationalised. Second, with regards to whether there was oncoming traffic on the opposite lane, the Plaintiff’s initial evidence during cross-examination was that she saw a car driving towards the Lorry on the opposite lane;¹⁷ and she also confirmed that the oncoming vehicle was not another semi-trailer truck.¹⁸ However, when confronted with a Police Report she filed stating that the oncoming vehicle was a lorry, she quickly abandoned this position by stating that she could not see what vehicle was coming clearly¹⁹ and did not know whether it was a car or other vehicle.²⁰

I therefore turn to the Fourth Defendant’s evidence. While I note that he did not actually see the Collision take place,²¹ there are key factual aspects relating to the Collision that have been adequately established from the Fourth Defendant’s evidence. First, the Fourth Defendant accepts that the Semi-Trailer Truck was parked along a double yellow zig-zag lines on Pioneer Crescent;²² and was obstructing the path of the Lorry.²³ Second, the Fourth Defendant accepts that the Lorry collided into the rear right portion of the empty chassis of the Semi-Trailer Truck,²⁴ resulting in 30-40% of the left side of the Lorry being damaged.²⁵ The reasonable and logical inference from this, is that the Lorry was in the process of driving past the Semi-Trailer Truck before the Collision. Third, the Fourth Defendant accepts that other vehicles would have to encroach onto the path of oncoming traffic on the opposite lane to drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck from the right.²⁶ This means that part of the Lorry was on the opposite lane when the First Defendant was trying to drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck from the right.

Based on the evidence before the Court, I therefore find (on a balance of probabilities) that the Collision happened as follows: the First Defendant was driving the Lorry along Pioneer Crescent when his path was obstructed by the Semi-Trailer Truck, which was parked on the double zig-zag lines along the road. He tried to drive past the Semi-Trailer Truck from the right side and encroached onto the path of oncoming traffic on the opposite lane. He aborted the manoeuvre around the time when the front part of the Lorry passed the rear of the Semi-Trailer Truck; and steered the Lorry into the rear right portion of the empty chassis of the Semi-Trailer Truck.

Based on the particulars of negligence pleaded by the Plaintiff, I find that the facts show that the First Defendant breached his duty of care by...