Tan Bok Eng v Lim Meng Kok

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1988
• Date: 02 June 1988
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 24 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tan Bok Eng

Plaintiff

and

Lim Meng Kok

Defendant

[1988] SGHC 49

L P Thean J

District Court Appeal No 24 of 1987

High Court

Tort–Joint tortfeasors–Whether motorcyclist and taxi driver each wholly liable to pillion rider irrespective of proportion of responsibility–Tort–Negligence–Breach of duty–Collision between motorcycle and motor taxi–Whether negligence made out against taxi driver–Proper inference from evidence

The plaintiff, who was then an infant, was riding pillion on a motorcycle ridden by the second defendant. As the motorcycle was crossing a junction, a motor taxi driven by the first defendant approached from the opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the collision, the plaintiff suffered injuries. The plaintiff brought an action against the first and second defendants claiming breach of duty to take care on the part of both or either of them. The second defendant did not defend the claim and judgment was entered against him. The first defendant, however, resisted the claim and this proceeded to trial. As the quantum of damages was agreed upon, the only question to be tried was the first defendant's liability.

At the conclusion of the hearing before the district judge, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed for his having failed to prove that the accident was caused by the negligence of the first defendant. The plaintiff appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The plaintiff was an innocent pillion rider injured from the collision between the motorcycle ridden by the second defendant and the motor taxi driven by the first defendant. There was no direct evidence of how and why the collision came about. On these facts, the inference could have been that the collision was caused by the negligence of both the defendants, or by the negligence of the first defendant, or by the negligence of the second defendant. It was therefore for the first defendant to rebut this inference of negligence on his part by giving evidence and for the district judge to then consider whether on the evidence the first defendant had succeeded in displacing the prima facie case against him. As the district judge did not evaluate the evidence on this basis, he had misdirected himself in law: at [4] and [6].

(2) On a review of the evidence of the first defendant, the judge found that he was partly to blame for the accident as he could have avoided the motorcycle but failed to do so: at [7].

(3) While the first defendant was probably less blameworthy than the second defendant, even a mere 1% responsibility made the first defendant a joint tortfeasor with the second defendant: at [7].

(4) As a joint tortfeasor the first defendant would be wholly liable to the plaintiff for his claim: at [7].

Baker v Market Harborough Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd [1953] 1 WLR 1472 (refd)

France v Parkinson [1954] 1 WLR 581; [1954] 1 All ER 739 (refd)

Loh Saik Pew v Tan Huat Chan [1974-1976] SLR (R) 703; [1975-1977] SLR 189 (refd)

C P Lee (C P Lee & Co) for the plaintiff

Wong Ching Hoong (Wu & Wong) for the...