Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Stafford Anthony John, deceased) v Goo Tong Sing and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKan Ting Chiu J
Judgment Date11 May 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 77
Citation[2006] SGHC 77
Defendant CounselAnthony Wee (Rajah & Tann)
Published date15 May 2006
Plaintiff CounselLynette Chew Mei Lin and Sharmini Selvaratnam (Harry Elias Partnership)
Date11 May 2006
Docket NumberSuit No 430 of 2004
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterSection 67 Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 1997 Rev Ed),Negligence,Contributory negligence,Whether motorcyclist riding without due care and beating red traffic lights at time of accident,Whether deceased contributorily negligent in causing accident,Motorcyclist having blood alcohol concentration of 68mg/100ml,Motorcyclist killed in collision with bus,Tort,Defendant relying on motorcyclist's blood alcohol concentration to argue motorcyclist unfit to ride at time of accident

11 May 2006

Judgment reserved.

Kan Ting Chiu J:

1 This action arose from a road traffic accident involving a motorcycle and a bus at the intersection of two roads.

2 The accident took place in the evening of 12 January 2002 at about 8.09pm. A Harley Davidson motorcycle ridden by Anthony John Stafford (“the deceased”) was proceeding along the left-most lane of Clementi Road, going straight at the intersection with Commonwealth Avenue West, heading towards Upper Bukit Timah Road. The bus, driven by Goo Tong Sing (“the bus driver”), had come from the opposite direction along Clementi Road, and was making a right turn into Commonwealth Avenue West, across the path the deceased was taking.

3 Clementi Road and Commonwealth Avenue West meet at almost right angles. As one approaches the intersection of Clementi Road from the direction of Upper Bukit Timah Road (the direction the bus was taking), there are five lanes in that direction. The right-most lane is exclusively for vehicles turning right. The lane next to it is for vehicles to turn right or go straight. There are right-turn pockets marked for these two lanes. The next two lanes are for vehicles going straight, and the left-most lane is for vehicles going straight or turning left.

4 When one approaches the intersection along Clementi Road from the opposite direction, ie, from the direction of the Ayer Rajah Expressway (the direction the deceased was taking), there are four lanes. The right-most lane is for vehicles turning right. The lane next to it is for vehicles turning right or going straight, and the next lane is for vehicles going straight and the last lane is for vehicles going straight or turning left. There are no turning pockets for any of these lanes.

5 The deceased died from the injuries suffered in the accident. The plaintiff in this action is the administratrix of the estate of the deceased. The bus driver was sued as the first defendant, and his employer, SBS Transit Ltd, was sued as the second defendant. The bus driver was not injured in the accident, but died before the hearing of the action, which then proceeded against the second defendant.

6 During the hearing, I did not have the benefit of the evidence of the deceased or the bus driver. There was, however, the evidence of an eye witness, Low Chong Eng (“Low”), which I shall refer to.

7 The plaintiff’s claim was that the accident was caused by the negligence of the bus driver, which was particularised as:

(a) failing to keep any or any proper lookout;

(b) driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances;

(c) failing to observe the presence of the deceased on his motorcycle proceeding straight along Clementi Road;

(d) failing to have any or any proper control over bus No SBS 7248 H;

(e) failing to give way to the deceased;

(f) failing to give any or any sufficient warning of his approach;

(g) encroaching into the path of the deceased when it was unsafe and dangerous so to do;

(h) colliding into the deceased;

(i) failing to exercise reasonable care, skill and prudence in the driving, use and management of bus No SBS 7248 H; and

(j) failing to stop, swerve, slow down or otherwise avoid the said collision.

8 The police investigations led to the bus driver being charged in court, where he pleaded guilty to a charge under s 304A of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) for causing the death of the deceased by a negligent act not amounting to homicide by failing to give way to the deceased’s motorcycle when turning right.

9 The bus driver admitted without qualification the facts presented by the Prosecution, inter alia, that:

On 12 Jan 2002 at about 8:09 p.m., the [bus driver] was travelling on the extreme right lane of the 3-lane dual carriageway of Clementi Road towards the signalised cross-junction of Commonwealth Avenue West and Clementi Road. At the said junction, the [bus driver] committed a negligent act when executing a right turn into Commonwealth Avenue West as he failed to give way to the deceased who was coming from the opposite side of the road. This resulted in a head-to-side collision between the said motor-bus and the motorcycle ridden by the deceased.

10 Upon his conviction the court imposed on the bus driver a fine of $10,000 or five months’ imprisonment in default thereof, and disqualified him from holding a driving licence of all classes for ten years.

11 The plea of guilt and conviction were relied on by the plaintiff as part of her case. The evidence in those proceedings were admissible evidence in this action under s 45A(1) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) which provides that:

[T]he fact that a person has been convicted or acquitted of an offence by or before any court in Singapore shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving, where relevant to any issue in the proceedings, that he committed (or, as the case may be, did not commit) that office, whether or not he is a party to the proceedings; and where he was convicted, whether he was so convicted upon a plea of guilty or otherwise.

12 The second defendant however denied liability and alleged negligence against the deceased, pleading that:

(a) the bus driver had turned right when the right-turn green arrow lights were in his favour;

(b) the deceased had beaten the traffic lights which were red against him when he entered into the junction;

(c) the deceased had failed to keep a proper lookout, was riding too fast, and had failed to exercise reasonable care and control over his motorcycle in colliding into the bus; and

(d) the deceased had consumed alcohol immediately prior to the accident and his judgment on the road was thereby affected.

It was also pleaded that the deceased was riding while on medication. This allegation was based on the presence of quinine in the deceased’s urine, but was not pursued as there was no evidence that the deceased was under any medical treatment.

13 Some of the police investigation papers were admitted in evidence at the trial. They included photographs of the vehicles and the scene of the accident, the sketch plan and key of the scene of the accident and the damage noted on the motorcycle and the bus.

14 The sketch plan showed the bus at a position two metres from the edge of the yellow box intersection. To put that in context, the bus had blocked all but two metres of the left-most lane of Clementi Road on which the deceased was travelling. There were glass and other fragments on the road at the front right corner of the bus but there were no skid marks, scratch marks or brake marks.

15 The police investigation officer confirmed that a person travelling in the direction taken by the deceased would have seen the intersection clearly from 150m, and that there was a slight downward slope along that stretch of the road.

16 The damage to the vehicles was as follows:

(a) The motorcycle:

(i) front left signal broken;

(ii) front left wing mirror broken;

(iii) left crash bar damaged;

(iv) fuel tank damaged; and

(v) scratch marks on the exhaust pipe.

(b) The bus:

(i) front right windscreen mirror webbed;

(ii) front right bumper damaged; and

(iii) front right part damaged.

17 Although the bus driver had died before this action came on for hearing, his police report was admitted in evidence, and he had filed his affidavit of evidence-in-chief in the proceedings.

18 The police report was included amongst the agreed documents which authenticity was not disputed. The affidavit of evidence-in-chief was admissible in evidence as an admission under ss 17(1) and 18(1) of the Evidence Act.

19 In his police report the bus driver stated:

On 12/1/02 @ 2010 hrs, I was driving Bus Service Number 165 vehicle No: SBS7248E along Clementi Rd towards Commonwealth Ave West. At the junction of Clementi Rd and Commonwealth Ave West, I stopped my bus inside the “Turn Right” Box while waiting to turn right into Commonwealth Ave West. When the traffic light turned red and the green arrow showed, I proceed to move my vehicle. As I was about to turn into Commonwealth Ave West, I saw a motorcycle travelling from the opposite direction of Clementi Rd (towards Sunset Way). I immediately jammed brake but the m/cycle (2600J) collided into the right front of my bus. My bus suffered slight damage but the rider of the m/cycle is killed on the spot. [emphasis added]

and in his affidavit of evidence-in-chief, he stated:

3. On the day of accident, 12 January 2002, at about 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., I was driving the 2nd Defendants’ motor bus bearing registration no. SBS 7248H (“my motor bus”) along the right most lane of Clementi Road. The road was a 2-way traffic road with 4 lanes on either side divided by a concrete centre divider.

4. The flow of traffic was moderate at that time. The weather was fine and the road surface was dry. Visibility was clear.

5. As I reached near the scene of accident, my motor bus was about 3 to 4 motor vehicles behind the first motor vehicle that had stopped at the junction of Clementi Road and Commonwealth Avenue West (“the said junction”) as the traffic lights at the said junction were red. We were waiting to turn right into Commonwealth Avenue West. When the traffic lights turned green, the motor vehicles in front of my motor bus started turning right into Commonwealth Avenue West one by one when the opposite traffic allowed for it. By the time my motor bus proceeded to the front of the queue, the traffic lights were still green. I therefore waited at the right-turning pocket for the green arrow to appear. Almost immediately after I reached the front of the queue, the traffic lights at the said junction turned red but I am not sure whether the green arrow had appeared. Once the traffic lights turned red, I proceeded to right. I lifted my foot off the brake pedal and my motor bus, being an automatic bus, inched forward. Just when I was about to step on the accelerator, I suddenly saw a motorcycle bearing registration no. FS 2600J (which I subsequently found out...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Lim Kay Han Irene v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 de março de 2010
    ...((cf Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Stafford Anthony John, Deceased) v Goo Tong Sing and another), [2006] 3 SLR(R) 277 at [38]). This fact must be proved. Hence, in order that the court may take this fact into account for the purposes of sentencing, it must be ......
  • SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Anthony John Stafford, deceased)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 30 de janeiro de 2007
    ...Chiu J (“the trial judge”) delivered on 11 May 2006 in Suit No 430 of 2004 (“Suit 430”): see Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane v Goo Tong Sing [2006] 3 SLR 277. Suit 430 was an action for damages under: (a) s 20 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (“CLA”) for the benefit of the dependants ......
  • SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Anthony John Stafford, deceased)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 30 de janeiro de 2007
    ...Chiu J (“the trial judge”) delivered on 11 May 2006 in Suit No 430 of 2004 (“Suit 430”): see Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane v Goo Tong Sing [2006] 3 SLR 277. Suit 430 was an action for damages under: (a) s 20 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (“CLA”) for the benefit of the dependants ......
1 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 de dezembro de 2006
    ...fairly apportioned at 20% and ordered that the defendant be indemnified accordingly. 22.40 Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane v Goo Tong Sing [2006] 3 SLR 277 was a tragic case involving a fatal accident. Here, the plaintiff”s estate brought an action to claim against the defendant who was driving......

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