Ramoo v Gan Soo Swee and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lord Cross of Chelsea
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1971
• Neutral Citation: [1971] SGPC 2
• Citation: [1971] SGPC 2
• Date: 04 May 1971
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ian Baillieu and Howard Cashin (Le Brasseur & Bakley)
• Docket Number: Privy Council Appeal No 22 of 1969
• Defendant Counsel: Marcus Anwyl-Davies QC and Yap Tyou Min (Battenberg & Talma),KE Hilborne (Berrymans)
• Court: Privy Council
• Year: 1971

This is an appeal with the leave of the Federal Court of Malaysia from a judgment of that court given on 7 November 1968 whereby it set aside a judgment of Buttrose J dated 31 May 1968 awarding the appellant Ramoo s/o Erulapan - the plaintiff in the action - 30,000 dollars damages in resect of injuries which he suffered as a result of a collision between a taxi cab driven by the first respondent Gan Soo Swee in which the appellant was a passenger and a lorry driven by the second respondent Ong Ah Ho. The judge held that the lorry driver was three quarters and the taxi driver one quarter to blame for the accident and apportioned the damages accordingly. The Federal Court held that neither driver was to blame. Assuming liability on the part of one or other or both drivers no question arises as to the amount of the damages.

The accident happened at about 8am on Sunday, 10 July 1966 on the junction between Dunearn Road and Whitley Road in Singapore. Dunearn Road is a one way road running north and south which carries traffic coming from the north into the City. Whitley Road is a dual carriageway running east and west. A little to the west of the intersection Whitley Road reaches another road called Bukit Timah Road which runs parallel to Dunearn Road and is a one way road carrying northbound traffic out of the city. The continuation of Whitley Road to the west of Bukit Timah Road is called Stevens Road. Both intersections were controlled by traffic lights which were synchronised with each other. Dunearn Road and Whitley Road are each straight roads for a considerable distance to the north and to the east respectively of their point of intersection and the evidence was that there was no other traffic about. Consequently there was nothing to prevent a vehicle travelling southwards along Dunearn Road from seeing the traffic lights facing him at the north-east corner of the junction well before he reached the junction or when he got near the junction from seeing traffic approaching the junction along Whitley Road. Similarly there was nothing to prevent a vehicle travelling westward along the south side of Whitley Road from seeing the traffic lights facing him on the south-east corner of the junction well before he reached them or when he got near to the junction from seeing traffic approaching the junction down Dunearn Road.

The taxi in which the plaintiff was a passenger was going along Dunearn Road towards the city. It passed the lights at the north-east corner of the junction and had gone about two-thirds of the way across the junction when it was hit in the middle of its near side by the lorry which had been travelling westwards along the south side of Whitley Road and had passed the lights at the south-east corner of the junction. The point of impact was in the south-east portion of the junction some 24 to 30 feet to the west of these lights.

On 20 June 1967 the appellant issued the writ in this action joining both the lorry driver and the taxi driver as defendants. In this statement of claim delivered the same day he gave the following particulars of negligence on the part of the lorry driver and the taxi driver respectively. As regards the lorry driver:

(a) Failing to keep any or any proper look-out.

(b) Driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances.

(c) Driving from a minor road on to a major road when it was unsafe so to do and without regard for traffic on the major road.

(d) Failing to give any or any proper warning of his approach or his intention to drive on to the said major road.

(e) Failing to give way to vehicles travelling on his right.

(f) Failing to apply his brakes in time or at all or so as to steer or control his lorry as to avoid the said collision.

(g) Driving against the traffic lights.

As regards the taxi driver:

(a) Failing to keep any or any proper look-out.

(b) Driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances.

(c) Failing to give any or any proper warning of his approach.

(d) Driving against the traffic lights.

(e) Failing to apply his brakes in time or at all or so as to steer or control his taxi as to avoid the said collision.

By their defences each defendant denied that he was guilty of any negligence and alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of the other defendant; alternatively each alleged that the negligence of the other contributed to the accident. Neither alleged that the traffic lights were defective in any way.

The plaintiff called as one of his witnesses a police corporal Abdullah bin Rahmat who said that he arrived at the scene of the accident at 8.45am and gave evidence as to the damage to the vehicles. In cross-examination by counsel for the lorry driver he said that the traffic lights were not functioning properly. Those facing Whitley Road turned from green to yellow and block to green without turning red. Those facing Dunearn Road changed in the proper sequence but the changes were very quick. He said that at one stage all the traffic lights at the junction showed green at the same time. In answer to counsel for the taxi driver he said that he had not made a report on the lights because when he returned to the police station he found that another police constable Say Lip Buck had already made a report. In re-examination he said that the lights facing Whitley Road stayed green longer than they stayed yellow, that the lorry driver had told him that the lights were green and that neither driver complained to him about the state of the lights though he pointed out their condition to them. The plaintiff said in his evidence in chief that he was in the front seat of the taxi beside the driver, that as he approached the intersection the traffic lights were green and that he noticed nothing unusual about them, that the taxi was travelling at 40 miles an hour, that he saw a lorry coming from Whitley Road on his left side, that it too was travelling at 40 miles an hour and that it collided with the taxi. In answer to questions by counsel for the lorry driver he said that he was 15 yards away from the lights when he first saw that they were green, that he never saw them any other colour than green, and that the lorry was about ten yards from the junction when he first saw it. The lorry driver called as a witness police constable Say Lip Buck. He said that at about 7 o`clock that morning he found that the traffic lights at the two junctions - the Dunearn and Whitley Road junction and the Bukit Timah and Whi tley-Stevens Road junction - were out of order, - the Dunearn and Bukit Timah lights functioning in proper sequence but faster than normal, the Whitley and Stevens Road lights changing from green to amber and back to green. The traffic was jammed up and after reporting the matter he took control of the traffic at the Bukit Timah junction until...