Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 03 February 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 26
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 26
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 09 April 2013
• Docket Number: Suit No 373 of 2011/D
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cecilia Hendrick and Archana Chandrasekaran (Kelvin Chia Partnership)
• Defendant Counsel: Patrick Yeo and Lim Hui Ying (KhattarWong)
• Subject Matter: Tort,Negligence,Motor Accident,Liability
• Hearing Date: 24 October 2011

Lai Siu Chiu J: Introduction

This case involved a motor accident that took place along Clemenceau Avenue North (“the road”) on 3 June 2009 (“the accident”). The motorcyclist Thorben Lanvad Linneberg (“the plaintiff”), sustained personal injuries as a result of a collision between his motorcycle and a mini-bus driven by Leong Mei Kuen (“the defendant”). At the conclusion of the trial, I found that the defendant was liable for the accident to the extent of 25%, with the plaintiff bearing 75% liability. As the plaintiff has appealed against my decision (in Civil Appeal No 141 of 2011), I now set out the grounds for my decision.

The facts

The road is a dual carriage way with two lanes in each direction, one towards Cairnhill Road and the other towards Newton Circus; it is divided by a continuous white line in the middle. Perpendicular to the road, and on the side of traffic heading towards Newton Circus, is Peck Hay Road. The road and Peck Hay Road together form a T-junction uncontrolled by any traffic light.

On 3 June 2009, at about 3.45pm, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle in the direction of Cairnhill Road, travelling along the right lane. The defendant, who is a school bus driver, had stopped her mini-bus on the left lane of the same road, alongside flat No. 50 of Monk’s Hill Apartments, where her last student had alighted. After the student had alighted, the defendant moved her mini-bus from its stationary position on the left lane into the right lane of the road. It was disputed whether the defendant was trying to make an illegal U-turn back towards Newton Circus or was turning right into Peck Hay Road.

The movement of the mini-bus across the plaintiff’s path of travel caused the plaintiff to swerve right in an evasive manoeuvre albeit unsuccessfully. The plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with the front-right side of the defendant’s mini-bus, causing the plaintiff to be thrown off the motorcycle and sustain personal injuries.

On 24 November 2011, the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of inconsiderate driving under s 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RTA”). There was, however, no evidence produced before this court as to the Statement of Facts the defendant had pleaded guilty to in the criminal proceedings.

The pleadings

In his Statement of Claim (“SOC”), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant caused the accident by, inter alia, failing to keep a proper lookout and to have sufficient regard for other road users. He also claimed that the defendant had not signalled right before executing the right turn and that the defendant had suddenly encroached into the plaintiff’s path of travel in an unsafe manner.

In the Defence, the defendant averred that before executing the turn, she had checked her mirror to ensure that traffic was clear, before signalling and making the right turn into Peck Hay Road. The defendant accordingly alleged that the accident was caused solely by the plaintiff’s negligence, or in the alternative, that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the accident. She pleaded that the accident was caused by the plaintiff’s attempt to dangerously overtake her mini-bus on the right side, via the side of the road heading in the direction of Cairnhill Road.

The trial

The plaintiff and the defendant were the only witnesses who took the stand in the one day trial.

The plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff testified that he was riding at the speed of about 50 kph which was well within the speed limit. He claimed that from a distance of 50m, he noticed the defendant’s mini-bus parked on the left side of the road, and that the min-bus’ hazard lights and right signal lights were not turned on. When he was about 15m away, the plaintiff said that the defendant suddenly executed a right-turn from its stationary position on the left side of the road in an attempt to make an illegal U-turn. According to the plaintiff, this made him suddenly brake hard, causing his rear tyre to “fish-tail”. By “fish-tailing”, what the plaintiff meant was the effect of the rear-tyre of his motorcycle moving from left to right continuously when he applied the brakes on the front tyres.

In response to the suggestion by counsel for the defendant (Mr Yeo) that the plaintiff could have moved his motorcycle to the left instead of the right to avoid the collision, or that he could simply have applied his brakes and kept straight since the collision occurred on the opposite lane, the plaintiff claimed that doing so might have led to him crashing straight into the mini-bus.

The defendant’s case

Contrary to the plaintiff’s account, the defendant testified that she had both switched on her hazard lights and signalled before attempting a right turn into Peck Hay Road. She also claimed that she had looked into her right side-view mirror and over her right shoulder before executing the right turn. She did not, however, see the plaintiff’s motorcycle while doing her checks. When referred by counsel for the plaintiff (Ms Cecilia Hendricks) to the traffic police sketch plan which showed the front tyres of the mini-bus turning slightly towards Newton Circus rather than towards Peck Hay Road, the defendant explained that the positioning of the tyres was due to the impact of the collision, not an attempt to make an illegal U-turn. As the plaintiff’s motorcycle had collided into the mini-bus at a very fast speed causing the mini-bus to swerve left, she had to turn her wheels back to the right, resulting in the mini-bus’s final position.

The findings

As indicated earlier at [8], other than the plaintiff and the defendant, who testified for their respective cases, there were no other witnesses. While the plaintiff had indicated in his SOC that the defendant had pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Court for the criminal offence of inconsiderate driving under the RTA, there was no evidence produced before the court nor was the defendant cross-examined on the details of that charge. Therefore much turned on the cogency and the credibility of the respective testimonies given by the plaintiff and defendant, considered in the light of the other evidence presented.

I found the...