Seah Yit Chen v Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How J
• Judgment Date: 14 May 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 36
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 36
• Date: 14 May 1990
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Kee Lay Lian (Rajah & Tann)
• Docket Number: Suit No 5165 of 1986
• Defendant Counsel: Jeanny Ng (Jeanny Ng),Benedict Chan (Goh Poh & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

Cur Adv Vult

On 16 November 1984 the plaintiff Seah Yit Chen, then 21, was a pillion rider on a motor scooter FB 8188H which was owned by the third defendant, and which he was riding along Alexandra Road in the direction of Jurong. At the junction of Alexandra Road and Tiong Bahru Road, the scooter was involved in a collision with a bus SBS 1000 which was owned by the first defendant and was driven by its servant or agent, the second defendant, along Alexandra Road but in the opposite direction just before the accident. The Alexandra Road and Tiong Bahru Road junction was controlled by traffic lights. At the time of the collision, the third defendant was travelling straight across the junction, while the second defendant was in the process of making a right turn from Alexandra Road into Tiong Bahru Road. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff sustained injuries and was hospitalized, the main injuries being a wedge compression fracture of the thoracic 12 vertebra, and a fracture of the upper end of the right tibia, resulting in continuing disability at the knee.

The plaintiff was not herself negligent, and therefore contends that one or more of the defendants is liable to compensate her in damages for the injuries and consequential losses she has suffered: Hummerstone v Leary [1921] 2 KB 664; Tan Bok Eng v Lim Meng Kok [1988] 3 MLJ 63 . The second defendant contends that she turned her bus only after the green arrow in the traffic lights had appeared in her favour, and that the third defendant beat the red light against him and in the circumstances failed to give way to her. The third defendant contends that the second defendant failed to give way to him and in turning right encroached on to his right of way.

Before and during the hearing, agreement was reached by the parties on the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff in respect of some of her claims, and the details are set out below. This narrowed the issues for the decision of the court to the following:

(a) what are the general damages which should be awarded to the plaintiff in respect of the injuries and loss suffered by her under the headings of the vertebra, tibia condyle and knee, osteo-arthritis, scars and skin-grafting;

(b) whether special damages should be awarded to the plaintiff for the cost of future spinal fusion surgery, including hospitalization and treatment charges, and for the consequential loss of earnings after such surgery;

(c) whether, as a matter of principle, special damages should be awarded to the plaintiff for the cost incurred by her of treatment by a Chinese physician;

(d) whether the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the second defendant or by the negligence of the third defendant or, if both of them were contributorily negligent, how liability should be apportioned.

The main injuries suffered by the plaintiff were to her spine and her knee, and as these injuries have led to several related claims under separate heads, the possibility of an overlapping in the damages to be awarded has been raised by counsel for the defendants. This is the risk that a plaintiff may be over-compensated as a result of the itemization of the heads of damage. In many accidents, the victim suffers multiple injuries. In assessing damages, a court may either adopt a global approach and award a total amount to cover all injuries and claims; or a component approach and award separate amounts for each head of damage, which are then totalled; or even a mixed approach and award separate amounts for each head of damage which are then totalled and matched against a global award. The case authorities which have been cited to me merely illustrate the difficulty which courts face in settling general guidelines to cover the vastly different factual situations which arise in practice, and with which they have to deal. The component approach appears to have been followed in most English cases since Lim Poh Choo v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1980] AC 174 and in Croke v Wiseman [1981] 3 All ER 852 at p 855, Lord Denning MR explained the ruling on this matter by the House of Lords in that case in the following words:

They declared that, even in these cases, we must go by the current method of itemizing the various heads of damages. We must assess the cost of future care, loss of future earnings, pain, suffering and loss of amenities, as if they were separate causes of action. Then we must add the items together and award the total sum as damages, irrespective of any overlapping so long as it does not look outrageously high.

Broadly the same approach was followed in Singapore in Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd [1984] 1 MLJ 325 ; but at about the same time in Ngooi Ku Siong v Aidi Abdullah [1985] 1 MLJ 30 , the Federal Court of Malaysia disapproved a High Court decision in which damages for some connected injuries had been assessed separately and not together. In my opinion, which approach is to be followed in each case must necessarily depend on the facts of the case, bearing in mind the need to avoid overlapping. When the injuries sustained are related to the same part or function of the body, there should only be one award of damages, without any risk of overlapping: where the injuries sustained are to different parts of the body and affect different functions, as in the instant case where the plaintiff has sustained injuries to the knee and to the spine, it would be appropriate to make a separate award for each head of damage. In such cases, however, care would still have to be taken to avoid a further `sub-itemizing` of a head of damage or injury.

In this case, the accident occurred on 16 November 1984. Since then the plaintiff has received periodic medical attention from Dr VP Kumar, a consultant orthopaedic surgeon at the National University Hospital, who has followed her progress and was able to give evidence before this court. Fortunately for the plaintiff, the evidence shows that the fracture of the vertebra has healed well: there is no deformity, the range of movement is full, and there is no consequential interruption of other bodily functions. I was referred by counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendants to a considerable range of awards in previous cases involving injuries to vertebrae. As previous awards are not binding precedents as to the amounts to be awarded in later cases, I shall not list them, but, bearing these previous awards in mind as helpful indicators, I am of the opinion that $10,000 would be an appropriate award under this head.

What is also in issue arising from the fracture of the vertebra is the complaint by the plaintiff of backache and pain, and the resulting suggestion that she should undergo spinal fusion surgery to deal with this complaint. On this, the parties are in agreement as to what the costs would be for such surgery, including hospitalization and treatment, and also the consequent loss of earnings, but are unable to agree on the need and therefore the liability for it. Evidence on this matter was given by two doctors who were not in agreement on the need or advisability for this surgery. Dr Kumar described the complaint as an occasional backache, or as mild pain which should be bearable; but he explained that there has been degeneration of the spine, and pain due to this degeneration. The plaintiff`s condition will progressively worsen, and spinal fusion surgery will be necessary in the future to fuse the injured vertebra to the vertebrae next to it, so that there will be no further movement in that area, which will alleviate the backache and pain.

Dr Robert Don, a consultant specialist in rehabilitative medicine who was previously the head of the Department of Rehabilitative Medicine at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, was called by the defence. He agreed that there has been degeneration, a development which would occur even with a normal person, but he was of the opinion that a continuation of conservative treatment would be preferable to surgery, which the symptoms that he saw did not justify. In particular, he noted that, in a test which he carried out, the plaintiff had no difficulty getting up from a supine position after lying down. On this point, however, the plaintiff explained later that on the day of the examination by Dr Don she had taken an anti-inflammatory tablet, diclofenac, to reduce the pain; and the bench on which she had to lie down during the examination was inclined and she had no difficulty getting up because of that.

In reviewing the differing evidence of Dr Kumar and Dr Don on the necessity or advisability of spinal fusion surgery, I am of the opinion that Dr Kumar`s evidence is to be preferred in this case. Of the two, he has been in the better position to form an opinion on the matter, after some five years of close observation of the plaintiff`s medical progress, whereas Dr Don was called in almost at the eleventh hour, did not have the advantage of seeing the X-ray films of the injuries, and was only able to see the plaintiff once. Both doctors agree in fact that the plaintiff suffers pain at times, and that this is in a way a subjective sensation, the intensity of which is felt differently by different people. What is also a fact in this case is that, since the accident in 1984, the plaintiff has been continually complaining of pain. So far, she appears to have borne this pain almost stoically, but it need hardly be said that parties defending claims for injuries inflicted by them should not expect to be absolved from liability for damages by relying on their victims having a high threshold of pain. In my judgment, she should not be deprived of the reasonable opportunity for at least some relief from pain which spinal fusion surgery may afford her in the future. As damages are awarded once and for all, she should be awarded now the agreed cost of future spinal surgery of $6,170;...