Quek Yen Fei Kenneth v Yeo Chye Huat

• Judge: Tay Yong Kwang J
• Judgment Date: 15 July 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 132
• Citation: [2013] SGHC 132
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 23 July 2013
• Docket Number: Suit No 695 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Srinivasan (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Renuka Chettiar (Karuppan Chettiar & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Contributory Negligence
• Hearing Date: 05 April 2013

Tay Yong Kwang J: Introduction

This case involved an accident between a motorcycle and a taxi. At around 4am on 11 Aug 2011, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle along Bencoolen Street (a one-way street) in the direction of Fort Canning Road when he was collided into by a taxi driven by the defendant which was travelling across the said street from the right to the left at an angle.

The plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident. Among other injuries, his right foot was badly mangled and his right leg had to be amputated below the knee.

The defendant did not deny that he was negligent. The only issue at trial was the extent of his liability and the corresponding contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The only two witnesses at trial were the plaintiff and the defendant.

The plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff testified in English. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was 20 years old and serving national service in Clementi Camp. On the day in question, he was sending his friend home after they had a meal. His friend was living at Selegie Road. After his friend alighted from the plaintiff’s motorcycle, the plaintiff travelled along Short Street into McNally Street, then into Prinsep Street and Middle Road. He made a right turn from Middle Road into Bencoolen Street. The plaintiff was heading for his home in Telok Blangah Drive, after which he intended to return to camp by 7.30am.

Bencoolen Street is a one-way street with 4 lanes. The plaintiff claimed that he was riding in the third lane from the right (“lane three”). In the statement of claim filed on 21 August 2012, it was originally averred that he was riding in the extreme left lane (“lane four”) of the four lanes. Three days before the trial, the plaintiff took out an application to amend the statement of claim in respect of two matters. The first was to change the above averment to state that he was travelling in lane three instead of lane four. The second was to include the fact that the defendant had been charged and convicted on his plea of guilt on the offence of inconsiderate driving under s 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed). The defendant was fined $800, given nine demerit points and disqualified from driving all classes of vehicles for slightly longer than four months. Just before the trial commenced, I allowed the plaintiff’s application to amend although it was objected to by the defendant, with the plaintiff to bear his own costs for the amendment. There could be no prejudice to the defendant as he could cross-examine the plaintiff on his change of position relating to the lane his motorcycle was travelling on. The criminal proceedings were an admitted fact and were relevant for the trial here.

Likewise, the defendant made an oral application to amend his Defence at paragraphs 2(e) and (f) (which set out the particulars of the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff) on the ground that they were typographical errors. The plaintiff argued that they were not such errors as they reflected what the defendant said in his police report. I allowed the amendments with the defendant to bear his own costs for the amendment. Similarly, there could be no prejudice to the plaintiff as the defendant could be cross-examined on his change of averment. The said paragraph 2(e) averred that the plaintiff failed “to slow down while filtering to lane 2” while paragraph 2(f) averred that he failed “to pay any or any sufficient heed to the presence of the said motor taxi No. SHC 2398D which was filtering to lane 2”. With the amendments, “lane 2” in each case was changed to “lane 3”.

There were vehicles parked along Bencoolen Street in lane four. The plaintiff recalled seeing a taxi in the extreme right lane (“lane one”) picking up passengers. As he rode on, the taxi sped across the road from lane one into lane three at an angle. He sounded the horn on his motorcycle but could not swerve to the left to avoid the taxi as there were vehicles parked along lane four. The taxi collided into the right side of the motorcycle and hit the plaintiff’s right leg. The collision occurred near the 24-hour coffee shops and the Bayview Hotel on the left side of the road. In front of the said hotel, there was an extra lane (“lane five”) for vehicles to turn left into Lorong Payah, a side road next to the hotel. There was also a taxi stand in lane five in front of the hotel.

The force of the impact caused the plaintiff to be flung off his motorcycle. He landed several metres away. He was conscious at that time but suffered excruciating pain at his upper and lower extremities. A Malay man went to help him. A little later, an ambulance arrived to bring the plaintiff to the Singapore General Hospital.

The plaintiff was warded in the hospital where he received treatment. Although he was advised to have his right leg amputated, he did not agree to it. When his mangled right foot continued to show signs of necrosis, amputation became unavoidable and that was done on 17 August 2011. He was discharged on 1 September 2011.

A sketch plan done by the traffic police showed the taxi resting on the dotted line dividing lanes three and four, with the length of the taxi almost parallel to the road and the front of the taxi pointing in the direction of the traffic flow. The location of the accident was near the Bayview Hotel. The sketch plan also indicated the motorcycle lying just inside lane five. There was blood stain further up the road.

The vehicle damage report prepared by the traffic police showed the left of the taxi’s front bumper to be scratched. It also showed that the motorcycle had scratches on both sides and some dents at the front and at the right rear section.

In the plaintiff’s police report lodged on 1 September 2011, after his discharge from hospital and three weeks after the accident, he stated that he was travelling along lane five when he saw the taxi picking up two passengers along lane one. That was obviously an error as there were only 4 lanes along Bencoolen Street until one reaches the front of Bayview Hotel. No sketch plan was provided by the plaintiff in his police report. In the box marked “Type of Collision”, the plaintiff indicated that it was “between moving vehicles – head to side”.

In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he was presently unemployed. He obtained his motorcycle licence in September 2010, less than a year before the accident. He admitted that he was involved in an earlier accident with a van on 14 June 2011.

On the evening before the accident, he had booked out of camp and reached his home at around 6pm. He slept until past midnight when his friend called him for supper. He went to meet his friend at about 1am. They went to have some food and did not consume alcohol. After the meal, they went to a shop to play computer games.

Along Bencoolen Street, there were vehicles parked along lane four. The plaintiff’s motorcycle and the defendant’s taxi were the only vehicles that were moving. Visibility was good as the street was well lit.

After his discharge from the hospital, the plaintiff went to take a look at the scene of the accident. He then went to lodge a Singapore Accident Statement with the General Insurance Association of Singapore on 6 October 2011. The details about the accident were taken word for word from his police report. However, the plaintiff drew a sketch plan of the accident in this statement. In this sketch plan, he drew the taxi moving at a sharp angle from lane two to lane three while the motorcycle was travelling straight in lane three. He also indicated that lane four was a bus lane.

The plaintiff said he was travelling at around 50kmph. He was taking his time as the traffic lights at the intersection ahead were showing red. The taxi, which was at the taxi stand on the right side of the street in lane one, a short distance from Bayview Hotel, moved suddenly to its left at an angle towards him. He could not swerve away to the left because of the...