Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat

• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 13 May 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 96
• Subject Matter: Personal injuries cases,Damages,Measure of damages
• Year: 2016
• Published date: 13 May 2017
• Docket Number: Suit No 695 of 2012
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 96
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 18 February 2016,27 April 2016,17 February 2016,16 February 2016,03 March 2016
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Srinivasan (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Renuka Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners)

Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction

On 11 August 2011, a taxi driven by Yeo Chye Huat (“the defendant”) along Bencoolen Street in the direction of Fort Canning Road collided into Quek Yen Fei Kenneth (“the plaintiff”) who was riding his motorcycle along the same road. On the date of the accident, the plaintiff was 20 years old and in National Service.

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries because of the accident. His right foot was severely mangled and his right leg had to be amputated below the knee. He also suffered from a fracture to his right collarbone.

The plaintiff subsequently brought an action in negligence against the defendant. The defendant did not deny that he was negligent. The only issue at the liability hearing was the extent of the defendant’s liability and the plaintiff’s corresponding contributory negligence. At the liability hearing, I found the defendant to be the sole cause of the accident and gave judgment for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed at 100% liability on the part of the defendant. The reasons for my decision on liability are set out in Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat [2013] SGHC 132.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against my decision on 3 May 2013. However, he subsequently withdrew his appeal, filing the Consent to Withdrawal of Appeal on 2 April 2014.

The assessment of damages then took place before me. After hearing the parties’ witnesses and the submissions, I gave my decision on the assessment of damages on 3 March 2016. With the consent of the parties, my decision was expressly stated to be subject to the possible revision of an item awarded for future medical expenses if an updated price list was submitted by one of the plaintiff’s witnesses within two weeks of the decision (see below at [47]-[51]). As a result, the issues of costs and interest were adjourned until after the final decision was made on that item of damages. That item, together with the issues of costs and interest, was subsequently dealt with in a hearing in chambers before me on 27 April 2016.

However, in the meantime, both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed against the 3 March 2016 decision on the assessment of damages by filing their notices of appeal on 30 March 2016 and 1 April 2016 respectively. The question of whether these notices of appeal cover the subsequent decision on 27 April 2016 will be discussed later.

The plaintiff’s claim

The plaintiff made the following heads of claim: General damages Pain and suffering; Future medical expenses; Future transport expenses; Loss of future earnings; and Loss of earning capacity. Special damages Medical expenses; Transport expenses; Motorcycle repair cost; Loss adjuster survey fees; Renovation expenses; and Pre-trial loss of earnings.

The decision of the Court

Taking into consideration the relevant evidence adduced by both parties, I now set out my assessment of each head of claim.

Pain and suffering

The plaintiff sought damages for the pain and suffering caused by the following: Below-knee amputation of right leg; Fracture to right collarbone; and Multiple scarring.

Both parties took guidance from Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases (Academy Publishing, 2010) (“the Guidelines”), which provided a range of damages awardable by the court in respect of various types of pain and suffering.

Below-knee amputation

In respect of the plaintiff’s below-knee amputation, I awarded the plaintiff $80,000 in damages.

The Guidelines provided for an estimated range of $40,000 to $70,000 in damages for the pain and suffering caused by a below-knee amputation of one leg. The plaintiff sought damages of $90,000 and brought to my attention the case of Ng Chee Wee v Tan Chin Seng [2013] SGHC 54 (“Ng Chee Wee”), in which the same was awarded to a plaintiff who suffered from a severe degloving injury to his right foot, albeit without amputation. The plaintiff also raised the cases of Pang Teck Kong v Chew Eng Hwa [1992] SGHC 31, where $50,000 was awarded for the pain and suffering caused by the amputation of the victim’s right leg, as well as Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd [2005] 4 SLR(R) 740 (“Mei Yue Lan Margaret”), where $100,000 was awarded to the victim who had developed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy after a severe injury to her right leg. On the other hand, the defendant submitted that an award ranging from $55,000 to $60,000 was sufficient. In particular, the defendant was of the view that the pain and suffering in the case of Mei Yue Lan Margaret was significantly more severe than that of the plaintiff in the present case. This was because the court in Mei Yue Lan Margaret held at [54] that with all things considered, “the pain and suffering she had to go through was more severe and for a longer period than an amputee’s”.

I awarded the plaintiff $80,000 as I was of the view that the plaintiff’s circumstances justified a slight uplift from the range provided in the Guidelines.

The fact that the plaintiff had undergone a surgical attempt to salvage his leg was relevant. In Ng Chee Wee, the High Court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 in damages because of the extensive pain and suffering he had to endure from the multiple surgeries he underwent to salvage the degloved part of his foot. An award of $90,000 was made even though the plaintiff did not amputate his leg, thus showing the significance of such surgical attempts in an award for pain and suffering. It was true that the plaintiff did not undergo as many surgeries as the victim did in Ng Chee Wee. I took into consideration the pain and suffering which he must have experienced from the surgical attempt to salvage his leg in my assessment as I did not think the plaintiff’s initial refusal to amputate his leg was unreasonable. Any young person in his circumstances would naturally want to cling on to the hope that the badly injured leg could somehow be salvaged and restored. After all, amputation is a momentous, life-changing decision and we should not look at the unfortunate situation the plaintiff found himself in from a purely clinical perspective.

Further, even though more than four years have passed since the accident, the plaintiff continues to experience phantom limb pain as well as pain from a neuroma that has formed at his amputation stump. The fact that such pain can exist was corroborated by Dr. Foo Siang Shen, Leon (“Dr. Foo”), who was the plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon at the Singapore General Hospital in 2011. As I saw no reason to doubt the plaintiff’s testimony that he was still experiencing such pain, I factored it into my assessment of damages.

Finally, I was of the view that allowance must be made for the suffering that comes from losing a leg at such a young age. The plaintiff was only 20 years old at the date of the accident. By contrast, the plaintiff in Ng Chee Wee was 35 years old.

Taking these factors into consideration, I awarded the plaintiff $80,000 in damages for the pain and suffering caused by his below-knee amputation.

Right collarbone fracture

In respect of the plaintiff’s right collarbone fracture, I awarded $15,000 in damages.

The Guidelines provided for an estimated range of $8,000 to $17,000. The plaintiff sought an award of $25,000 whereas the defendant argued that an award of $13,000 was sufficient.

The plaintiff cited various precedents in which the High Court awarded damages for collarbone injuries (examples include Ong Zern Chern Philip v Wong Siang Meng [2004] SGHC 256 and Ting Heng Mee v Sin Sheng Fresh Fruits Pte Ltd [2004] SGHC 43). However, these precedents did not advance the plaintiff’s case. The sums awarded by the High Court in those cases fell within the range provided by the Guidelines and significantly short of the plaintiff’s submission of $25,000. As no justification was provided by the plaintiff to support his claim, I saw no reason to depart from the Guideline’s range of estimated damages in respect of the injury to the collarbone.

In determining the appropriate quantum of damages, the Guidelines indicate that factors such as the need for future surgery, the extent of disability caused by the injury and whether any complications arose during recovery need to be considered. There were two medical opinions adduced on this injury.

In court, Dr. Foo testified that the plaintiff’s right arm was able to function satisfactorily. During a medical review that was conducted on 21 December 2011, four months after the plaintiff’s accident, Dr. Foo’s diagnosis was that the plaintiff’s right arm had no restriction in its rotation and was capable of a full range of motion. As there was no significant disability of his right arm, Dr. Foo further opined that that the plaintiff could leave the injury untreated.

Dr. Foo’s testimony was supported by Dr. Chang Haw Chong (“Dr. Chang”) from HC Chang Orthopaedic Surgery Pte Ltd, who reviewed the plaintiff twice (on 8 March 2012 and 23 August 2013). Dr. Chang was likewise of the opinion that the plaintiff’s collarbone injury was a mild disability and could be left untreated.

While I acknowledge that the plaintiff’s collarbone injury was mild in nature and could be left untreated, I took into account the fact that the plaintiff has yet to fully recover from the injury and continues to experience mild aching pains when he sleeps on his right side even though more than four years have passed since the accident. I therefore awarded him $15,000 in damages for the pain and suffering caused by the injury to his right collarbone, an amount that was within the range provided by the Guidelines but at the higher end.

Multiple scarring

As a result of the accident as well as his below-knee amputation, the plaintiff suffered from scarring on his amputation stump, right knee, and the back of his right...