Tan Gim Seng v Gurdev Singh Gill

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: A V Winslow J
• Judgment Date: 17 May 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGHC 10
• Docket Number: Suit No 90 of 1966
• Date: 17 May 1967
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1967
• Plaintiff Counsel: HE Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar)
• Citation: [1967] SGHC 10
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Tee Seng (Allen & Gledhill)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether skid brought about by defendantÂ’s negligence,Defendant attempting to avoid cyclist causing car to skid and collide into plaintiff,Breach of duty,Tort,Negligence

The question I have to decide in this case is whether the skid in question which led to the collision with the plaintiff was brought about by the defendant`s negligence and, if not, whether he dealt with the skid in the proper manner so as to avoid the result of such skid.

I have no doubt that the collision with the first cyclist earlier on was brought about by the sole negligence of that cyclist. In attempting to avoid him the defendant swerved to his right. Complaint was made that he should have applied his brakes. The defendant says that he thought a swerve to the right was the better of the two alternatives. I cannot say that he was negligent in doing so in the emergency that faced him. In swerving back to his former course his car skidded after travelling 20 feet from the first collision and swivelled round and came to rest on the left hand kerb facing in the opposite direction after knocking down the plaintiff.

I accept the explanation given by the defendant that he did all that he could to avoid both collisions. Moreover, there is no evidence of excessive speed or of bad or careless driving on his part. He is also supported by an eye-witness who saw the first collision whose evidence, which is to the effect that the first cyclist cut across the defendant`s path, I accept.

It was contended that, after the skid began, the defendant travelled slightly over a hundred feet whereas in Hunter v Wright [1938] 2 All ER 621 where the defendant was held not to blame, the car travelled only 13 to 20 feet and that therefore this showed that he did not deal with the skid in the proper manner. I do not think that the greater distance travelled by the defendant necessarily shows that he acted improperly in dealing with the skid after its commencement. The speed of the car in Hunter`s case was 16 to 20 mph whereas the defendant`s speed was somewhat more though less than 30 mph. The defendant gave it as between 25 to 28 mph which does not seem excessive and the defendant says that, after the skid began, he tried to control his car by using his brakes and steering to the right to prevent its making the left-handed U-turn which it did to the left side of the road notwithstanding his efforts. One need hardly add that an important factor in reducing the distance travelled during a skid is how quickly one hits an obstruction such as a pavement.

He had been compelled by the reckless action of the first cyclist to encroach on the path of on-coming vehicles...