Syahirah binte Sa'ad v Tay Chin Seng (Muhammad Hedir bin Mahmood, third party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kevin Kwek
• Judgment Date: 01 February 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGDC 14
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DC 1435/2016
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 10 October 2019
• Hearing Date: 06 August 2018,02 February 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Arulchelvan Sivagnasundram (Chia S Arul LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr. Anthony Wee (United Legal Alliance LLC),Mr. Richard Tan (Tan Chin Hoe & Co)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence
• Citation: [2019] SGDC 14

District Judge Kevin Kwek: Introduction

The plaintiff was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle (the “Motorcycle”). The Motorcycle was ridden by the third party, the husband of the plaintiff. The defendant was the driver of a motor taxi (the “Taxi”).

The accident involving the Motorcycle and the Taxi occurred in a bay area (the “Bay Area”) along Simei Avenue on 29 January 2015 (the “Accident Date”). Simei Avenue is a three-lane road with the Bay Area located on the left of the left lane. A screenshot of Simei Avenue from the video footage taken from the Taxi’s front-view camera (“Taxi’s Front-View Recording”) before the accident is set out in Annexure A. The screenshot depicts the Bay Area, the left lane, the centre lane and the right lane of Simei Avenue.

This was a bifurcated trial, with only the issue of liability of the defendant and third party before the Court. No fault was attributed to the plaintiff given that she was a pillion passenger on the third party’s Motorcycle.

The plaintiff claimed that the accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant’s position was that the third party was the author of the plaintiff’s misfortune and that the defendant should not be solely held liable for the same¹ and claimed for a contribution or indemnity from the third party. The third party maintained that the defendant was solely liable for the accident.

The following persons gave evidence during the trial on liability on 2 February 2018 and 6 August 2018: The plaintiff; The defendant; The third party; Senior Investigation Officer, Mr. Kenny Cheong from the Singapore Police Force; and Mr. Tay Liang Jun (“Liang Jun”), who had witnessed the accident.

Having considered the evidence and counsel’s submissions, interlocutory judgment is entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed. The third party is to contribute towards the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff, to the extent of 50% of the damages to be assessed together with such costs and interest which the defendant is liable to the plaintiff.

Before setting out the Court’s findings, the parties’ respective positions are summarised below.

The Plaintiff’s Version of Events

According to the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, at about 4.45 p.m. on the Accident Date, the plaintiff and the third party were on the Motorcycle and travelling along the left lane of Simei Avenue when the Taxi driven by the defendant, who was also travelling on the left lane, suddenly applied the emergency brakes, swerved left and collided into the Motorcycle.²

In her AEIC and oral testimony, the plaintiff elaborated that while the Motorcycle was travelling along the left lane of Simei Avenue, the defendant’s Taxi was travelling along the centre lane when it suddenly swerved left and cut into the Motorcycle’s travelling path, resulting in a collision between the vehicles. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff was flung from the Motorcycle and suffered injuries.

The Defendant’s Version of Events

The defendant stated that the accident happened at about 5.15 p.m. on the Accident Date, rather than at 4.45 p.m. as stated by the plaintiff and third party. According to the defendant, the Taxi was travelling in the centre lane of Simei Avenue initially as the left lane was a bus lane.³ The defendant was hoping to pick up a passenger along Simei Avenue.

When the defendant saw a person standing along the Bay Area flagging his Taxi, the defendant indicated his intention to filter into the Bay Area by switching on the Taxi’s left indicator signal. The Bay Area is located on the left of Simei Avenue. The defendant checked the Taxi’s rear-view mirror and left-wing mirror and saw that the Motorcycle was about four-car lengths away.⁴ The defendant noticed that the Motorcycle was behind the Taxi and to the left side of the road.⁵ As the defendant filtered into the Bay Area and was about to stop his Taxi, the defendant heard a “bang” sound. Thereafter, he realised that the third party’s Motorcycle had collided into the Taxi’s left-wing mirror.

According to the defendant, the third party failed to give way to the Taxi as the latter was filtering into the Bay Area and had attempted to overtake the defendant’s Taxi from the left even though the defendant had indicated his intention to filter into the Bay Area. The defendant claimed that the third party “wanted to squeeze through from the left side of [the Taxi]”.⁶

The Third Party’s Version of Events

The third party stated in his Defence in the third party proceedings and AEIC that the accident occurred at about 4.45 p.m. On cross-examination however, he clarified that he was unsure of the time of the accident and that the time of 4.45 p.m. was based on what the plaintiff (his wife) had told him.

According to the third party, he was riding the Motorcycle on the left lane of Simei Avenue at the material time as he had intended to make a left turn further front. The third party stated that the Taxi was initially “travelling in the cent[re] lane beside [his Motorcycle]”.⁷

Suddenly, and without warning, the Taxi swerved left and cut into the path of his Motorcycle. According to the third party, he slowed down his Motorcycle in response, the Taxi then suddenly braked and at that point, the Motorcycle was behind the Taxi.⁸ In order to avoid colliding into the rear of the Taxi, the third party swerved his Motorcycle into the Bay Area. However, the Taxi also filtered left into the Bay Area and side-swiped the Motorcycle.⁹ In support of this allegation, the third party stated that the Taxi had moved into the Bay Area in order to pick up passengers.

Findings

Having reviewed the documentary evidence, the Taxi’s Front-View Recording and the witnesses’ testimonies, I make the following findings: The accident occurred on or about 5.15 p.m., when the bus lane was operational along Simei Avenue.¹⁰ The defendant’s Taxi was initially travelling in the centre lane of Simei Avenue and the Motorcycle was also travelling behind the Taxi in the centre lane. As the Taxi approached the Bay Area, the defendant noticed a person at the Bay Area flagging his Taxi. The defendant turned on the Taxi’s left indicator light and swerved from the centre lane to the left lane and thereafter into the Bay Area. From the Taxi’s Front-View Recording, it took the Taxi only about 2 to 2.5 seconds to swerve from the centre lane and into the Bay Area. The defendant swerved his Taxi from the centre lane to the left lane just before the bus lane ended (i.e. just before the line separating the left and centre lanes changed from a solid line to a dotted line).¹¹ The defendant did not check his blindspot on the left when he swerved from the centre lane to the left lane and into the Bay Area. At the time the Taxi was moving from the centre lane to the left lane, the third party’s Motorcycle was only 1 to 2 car-lengths behind the Taxi and travelling on the line separating the left lane and centre lane. As the defendant’s Taxi moved from the centre lane to the left lane, the third party’s Motorcycle (that was travelling on the line separating the left lane and centre lane) moved left, accelerated and attempted to overtake the defendant’s Taxi from the left. However, as the defendant’s Taxi continued to move left into the Bay Area, the third party was unable to overtake the Taxi and this resulted in a collision between the Taxi and the Motorcycle in the Bay Area.¹²

The basis for my findings is elaborated below.

Basis for Findings The Independent Witness’s Evidence

Apart from the plaintiff, defendant and third party, Liang Jun was also at the scene of the accident. Liang Jun was a person in the Bay Area flagging the Taxi at the material time and had witnessed the accident. He can also be seen standing in the Bay Area in the Taxi’s Front-View Recording.

Upon witnessing the accident, Liang Jun dialled “999” to report the accident. The First Information Report by the Singapore Police Force recorded that Liang Jun had made the call at 17:19:22 Hrs.¹³ The third party was subsequently issued a stern warning on 12 February 2015 by the Singapore Police Force in lieu of prosecution for inconsiderate driving.

Insofar as the evidence of Liang Jun was concerned, I found Liang Jun to be an impartial witness and his evidence to be cogent and credible. He had a reasonably good recollection of the accident and had a clear view of the accident.

Most crucially, Liang Jun was not a party to the dispute, and had nothing to gain by coming forward to testify. I gave significant weight to his evidence that: The third party’s Motorcycle was not on the left lane at all times unlike what the plaintiff and third party alleged.¹⁴ When Liang Jun first saw the Taxi, the Taxi was in the centre lane and the Motorcycle was at least 4 to 5 car-lengths behind the Taxi and to the right of the Taxi.¹⁵ Liang Jun’s attention was drawn to the Motorcycle given the “pretty loud”¹⁶ noise made by the Motorcycle’s exhaust pipe. The defendant turned on the Taxi’s left indicator light upon noticing that Liang Jun was flagging the Taxi in the Bay Area.¹⁷ Just before the bus lane ended (i.e. just before the line separating the left and centre lanes changed from a solid line to a dotted line)¹⁸, the defendant’s Taxi swerved from the centre lane to the left lane.¹⁹ At this point, the third party’s Motorcycle was travelling on the line separating the left lane and the centre lane and only 1 to 2 car-lengths behind the Taxi.²⁰ The third party’s Motorcycle filtered left, accelerated and attempted to overtake the defendant’s Taxi from the left.²¹ Liang Jun’s attention was “focus[ed] on [the Motorcycle] even more” as the acceleration sound was “louder than usual”.²² The third party’s Motorcycle was in the process of overtaking the defendant’s Taxi from the left when the Taxi continued left into the Bay...