See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChan Sek Keong J
Judgment Date07 March 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGHC 54
Date07 March 1992
Subject MatterInterest on damages,Estate and dependency claim,Damages,Grounds for awarding,Available surplus,'Lost years',Measure of damages,Calculation of multiplicand,Death
Docket NumberSuit No 762 of 1987
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselSimon Yuen (Khattar Wong & Partners),NK Pillai (Harry Elias & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselKaruppan Chettiar and S Selvaraj (Murphy & Dunbar)

Cur Adv Vult

This is a claim by the widow of Teo Ee Soon, deceased, as administratrix of his estate, on behalf of the estate and of the dependants of the deceased for damages suffered by them as a result of the negligence of the first defendant in the driving, use and management of motor lorry No YB8595R (`the lorry`) and by the negligence of the servant or agent of the second defendants in the driving, use and management of motor bus No SBS4067S (`the bus`), or alternatively, by the negligence of one or other of them in the driving of them on 16 July 1986 along Ayer Rajah Road, Singapore.

The deceased was killed in very unfortunate circumstances.
He was a passenger in the bus which was then travelling along Ayer Rajah Road in the direction of Jurong. Ayer Rajah Road had two vehicular lanes going in that direction. There was a wide pedestrian walk on the inner side of these two lanes which was marked off with curbs situated at various points along the road. There was a bus bay at that section of the road opposite the National University Hospital, and the bus bay was contiguous with the pedestrian walk. There was a road junction regulated by traffic lights some distance away from the bus bay.

Before the bus could reach the bus bay, the traffic lights had turned red and there was a row of vehicles which had stopped in front of the bus.
The stationary vehicles stretched from the traffic lights to a point about 16.5m beyond the bus bay. When the bus stopped, it was that distance away from the bus bay. The bus driver then opened the exit door of the bus to allow passengers to alight. The deceased alighted and was on the pedestrian walk (a fact which I hereby found), where he was knocked down by the lorry which was travelling on the pedestrian walk. He suffered serious injuries and died in hospital about three hours later. The time when the collision occurred was about 8.20pm.

In his defence, the first defendant denied negligence and averred that the plaintiff`s loss was caused solely or contributed to by the negligence of the deceased and by the negligence of the bus driver, or alternatively, by the negligence of one or other of them.


The defence of the second defendants was that the collision was caused solely or contributed to by the negligence of the first defendant.


Liability

When the action came on for hearing, counsel for the first defendant applied to amend the defence to withdraw the allegation of negligence against the deceased. In consequence, the issue before me was whether the lorry driver or the bus driver was negligent and to what extent.

Counsel for the plaintiff called several witnesses to testify on liability.
There was the police officer who investigated the accident. Apart from producing his report and measurements of the road etc, he had no relevant evidence to give in relation to how the accident had occurred.

There was an independent witness (`PW4`).
He was also a passenger on the bus at that time. He confirmed his evidence which he had given earlier in connection with the prosecution of the first defendant for an offence under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224) (`the Code`). His evidence was that just after the bus had passed a petrol kiosk along Ayer Rajah Road, the deceased got up from his seat and signalled the driver to stop the bus. The bus did not stop but proceeded on. He then got up and pressed the buzzer once. He was standing next to the exit door, waiting for the bus to stop, when he noticed the traffic lights in front turning red. The bus stopped behind a vehicle and the driver opened the exit door. The deceased then alighted, and he followed behind. As soon as he stepped onto the road, he felt a great force pass him. The bag he was carrying on his shoulder was ripped off his shoulder. Before he could recover from his shock, he saw the lorry moving ahead. He looked in front and saw the deceased underneath the bus.

Under cross-examination, PW4 said that the bus was going at a regular speed of about 50 to 60km/h.
The traffic was smooth-flowing and moderate. The bus slowed down before it stopped. It did not stop abruptly. It stopped at about two bus lengths from the bus bay behind vehicles which had already stopped.

The first defendant, who is aged 75, gave evidence.
He said that at about 7pm he was driving the lorry at about 25 to 30mph when the bus in front of him suddenly braked. (Later, he said that the figures could have been in kilometres. I should further add that the speedometer of the lorry was found not to be working after the accident.) He applied his brake and swerved to his left to avoid colliding into the bus. He did not brake to stop the lorry as he wanted to continue his journey. There was a space of about 1.5m between the road and the curb where the rear of the bus had stopped, and he was able to drive the lorry onto the pedestrian walk, with the right set of wheels going in between this space. He did not see anyone alighting from the bus as he was concentrating on driving his lorry.

The first defendant said that he was not driving fast as his lorry had broken down shortly before the incident along Nicoll Highway Road.
The engine had overheated and he had to call for assistance to start the lorry.

Under cross-examination, he said that he was returning undelivered goods to the Beecham factory in Jurong, that he had wanted to go to the workshop in Jurong first, that the Beecham factory would close at about 9pm, and that if he did not return the goods in time, he would have to leave them in the lorry.
He said the bus was travelling faster than the lorry, but could not remember how long he had been following the bus before the accident. He did not know whether the bus had lights on as he did not pay attention. He also could not remember seeing the brake lights of the bus or the left indicator coming on as the accident had happened a long time ago. He admitted that he was not paying attention when the bus stopped. He had no time to stop as he was about 7ft away from the bus when he noticed the bus had stopped. He admitted that he wanted to continue his journey by driving on the pedestrian walk. He drove on until he heard some noise and he stopped. Whilst driving past the bus, he did not realize that he had knocked down the deceased.

In addition to his oral testimony, the first defendant had pleaded guilty to a charge under s 304A of the Code for rash and negligent driving.
He had admitted in the statement of facts tendered in those proceedings that: `In an attempt to avoid hitting the bus, accused deliberately swerved the lorry to the left onto the level concreted portion of the road which served as the pavement cum bus bay.` His oral testimony was substantially the same. Having avoided the bus, his intention was to proceed until he could swerve back onto the road.

The bus driver`s testimony was that he was driving at about 45km/h along Ayer Rajah Road when, after the Buona Vista junction, he saw the traffic lights about to turn red.
He slowed down and came to a stop behind a row of vehicles. As he stopped, he opened the exit door for a passenger to alight. He knew that the bus had stopped next to a pedestrian walk and not at the bus bay but some distance away from it. He said he also gave the alighting signal after he had opened the door. He said that he opened the door as he was stopping as he felt bad about not stopping at the last bus stop when a passenger had pressed the bell just as he reached that bus stop. His evidence was not shaken notwithstanding prolonged cross-examination by counsel for the first defendant. I believe his evidence.

In his submission, counsel for the first defendant submitted that the bus driver was one-third to blame for the accident for (1) not keeping a proper look-out for vehicles at the rear and in stopping suddenly, (2) failing to give the alighting signal before allowing passengers to alight, (3) in not stopping at the bus bay and in allowing the deceased to alight at a place not designated for that purpose, which was a breach of statutory duty.
He submitted that a breach of statutory duty was prima facie evidence of negligence and that the bus driver had not discharged the burden of proving otherwise.

Counsel cited numerous authorities on the duty of care of and to road users, and on breach of statutory duty.
I do not intend to examine them here, as I do not think that this case raises any new principle of law. In my view, there is no doubt whatever that the first defendant was negligent when he was unable to stop behind the bus. He was not paying any attention at all to vehicles in front of him. By the time he realized that the bus had stopped, he said he was about 7ft away. This statement could not possibly be correct as he would never have had the reaction time to swerve to the left to avoid hitting the bus, as the lorry was travelling at 20 to 25km/h. Furthermore, on his own evidence, he was reckless in driving the lorry in between the gap left by the bus onto the pedestrian walk, when he should have realized that there might be pedestrians on the pedestrian walk.

The bus driver was in breach of a statutory duty in allowing the deceased to alight at a place not designated for such purpose.
But what he did was not necessarily negligent. The object of legislating that buses stop at bus bays and bus stops to allow passengers to alight is to ensure the safety of passengers when they alight. No one expects another vehicle to be driven onto the left of a bus when a bus is at a bus bay or a bus stop. In this case, the bus driver did not deliberately stop the bus before the bus bay. He had to stop. When the bus driver decided to allow passengers to alight, the bus had stopped next to a pedestrian walk. He could not have expected any vehicle behind him to be driven onto the pedestrian walk.

The first defendant said that he had never expected any passenger to alight from the bus, and so he proceeded.
He also said that he had to swerve...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Lim Fook Lau and Another v Kepdrill International Incorporated SA and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 October 1992
    ... ... They cited Chan Heng Wah [1988] 1 MLJ 74 See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang & Anor [1992] 2 SLR 242 Lai Chi Kay & Ors v Lee ... ...
  • Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 October 2012
    ...628 (refd) SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane [2007] 2 SLR (R) 211; [2007] 2 SLR 211 (folld) See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang [1992] 1 SLR (R) 535; [1992] 2 SLR 242 (refd) Smith v Myles 580 So 2 d 1088 (La App 4 Cir 1991) (refd) State v Balliette 2011 WI 79 (Wis 2011) (refd) State ......
  • Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 October 2012
    ...[emphasis added in italics and in bold italics] In the Singapore High Court decision of See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang and another [1992] 1 SLR(R) 535, a case where a medical officer was knocked down by a lorry, Chan Sek Keong J (as he was then) discussed the principle of the “agony of the ......
  • Balanalagirisamy Gowri Rajeswari and another (administrators of the estate of Radhakrishnan Hari Babu, deceased) v Wong Si Wah
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 October 2008
    ...that three multiplicands should be used. 12 The use of different multiplicands is not unprecedented. In See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang [1992] 2 SLR 242 (“See Soon Soon”), Chan Sek Keong J split the multiplier of 15 years into one period of five years and one period of 10 years and applied a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT