Back
2025 MarsdenLR 106
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
KARTIK PUROSOTHMEN – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMAD FERDAUS MOHAMAD ASRI & ORS – Respondent
[Writ Of Summons No: AA-21NCVC-6-04/2022]
The case affirms the duty of care owed by prison authorities, holding them liable for negligence due to serious delays in medical treatment leading to permanent injuries, while establishing concepts of assault and battery.
Headnote:(A) Federal Constitution - Article 5(1) - Tort Law - Negligence - Assault and Battery - Vicarious Liability - This case involves a claim for damages due to personal injuries suffered by a prisoner from assault by prison staff and inadequate medical treatment resulting in permanent eye injury and glaucoma. The Plaintiff asserts the First Defendant committed assault and battery through intentional harm, whereas the Defendants argue it was unintentional. Court found sufficient evidence to establish negligence due to delayed medical treatment and failure to monitor post-surgical care resulting in further injury. Vicarious liability applies to prison authorities for staff actions. (Paras 14, 38, 60, 128)
(B) Duty of Care - The court highlights the duty of care owed to prisoners by state authorities to ensure access to medical treatment, deeming the delays in care as breaches. The Plaintiff's psychological distress due to prolonged suffering was acknowledged, although claims for mental harm lacked sufficient evidence. (Paras 31, 35, 56, 60, 128)
(C) Damages - Court awarded RM80,000 for general damages for physical injuries and RM80,000 aggravated damages for additional suffering due to negligence. Claims for special and exemplary damages were dismissed for lack of substantiation. (Paras 80, 112, 128)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff alleged severe eye injuries resulting from a bottle thrown by a prison officer during a muster session, followed by inadequate medical treatment resulting in further complications. (Paras 1-10)
Findings of Court:
The Defendants were found liable for negligence in failing to provide timely and appropriate medical care, leading to permanent eye disability and suffering. Aggravated damages awarded due to the inhumane treatment of the Plaintiff by prison officials. (Paras 128, 130)
Issues: (i) Did the First Defendant commit assault and battery? (ii) Was there negligence in medical treatment? (iii) Did actions violate constitutional rights? (iv) Were the Defendants vicariously liable? (v) What damages are warranted? (Paras 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that the First Defendant’s reckless actions constituted battery, while the delayed and inadequate medical treatment demonstrated negligence, with a clear causal link to the Plaintiff’s injuries. The court reaffirmed the importance of duty of care for prison authorities. (Paras 24-36, 50-52)
Result: Plaintiff awarded RM80,000 for general and RM80,000 for aggravated damages; claims for special and exemplary damages dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of negligence leading to injury. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. defense arguments against negligence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. analysis of breach of duty in medical care. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 4. violation of constitutional rights through negligence. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 5. assessment of physical and mental injuries. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 6. vicarious liability of prison authorities. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 7. general damages related to physical injuries. (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 8. special damages for future medical costs. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 9. assessment of aggravated damages. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112) |
| 10. denial of exemplary damages due to lack of malicious intent. (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128) |
| 11. final conclusions and accountability emphasized. (Para 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134) |
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff, a former prisoner, brings this claim seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained during his incarceration at Tapah Prison. The incident giving rise to these proceedings occurred on 30 April 2019, during which the Plaintiff contends that he suffered severe and permanent injuries due to the deliberate and negligent acts of the Defendants. The Defendants comprise the 1st Defendant, an officer at the prison, and the 2nd to 5th Defendants being the head of the prison, the General Commissioner of Prisons, the Malaysian Government, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, who are sued vicariously for the alleged failures within the prison system.
Background Facts
[2] On 30 April 2019 at approximately 6.00 pm, a muster session was held at the Damai Block involving approximately 1000 prisoners.
[3] At the final session of the muster, several prisoners including the Plaintiff came to request painkillers/paracetamol from the prison officers. At that time, the prison officers informed the prisoners that the medicine was running out of stock and the prisoners were asked to give their room numbers for the medicine to be given later.
[4] The Defendants claimed that the prisoners including the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the said information and started to create a commotion in front of the prison officers, including the 1st Defendant.
[5] The 1st Defendant had allegedly ordered the prisoners to return to their respective cells. However, the 1st Defendant heard the prisoners, including the Plaintiff, used abusive language towards the prison officers because they were dissatisfied with the situation.
[6] The 1st Defendant reprimanded the prisoners and claimed to have accidentally threw an empty medicine bottle towards the entrance to the prisoners' cells. The 1st Defendant stated that, at that time, the Plaintiff turned back and the empty medicine bottle hit the Plaintiff's glasses.
[7] The Plaintiff however alleges that the 1st Defendant had, with malicious intent, threw a bottle allegedly containing urine towards him. The bottle struck the Plaintiff in the face with considerable force, causing his spectacles to shatter and resulting in a severe injury to his right eye. The Plaintiff maintains that this was no mere accident but an act executed with the intent to harm, evidencing malice on the part of the 1st Defendant.
[8] Following the incident, the Plaintiff was in acute pain and bleeding profusely from his injured eye. Despite the apparent severity of his condition, he alleges that the response of the prison authorities was woefully inadequate. He was treated at the prison clinic by an Assistant Medical Officer rather than a qualified doctor. The P
