The decision affirms that liability determination relies on credible evidence, and compensation for damages must adequately reflect the severity of injuries sustained.

Introduction

[1] This appeal arises from a running down action that has left both parties dissatisfied with the outcome at the Sessions Court. The Appellants/Defendants challenge the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge, who found the First Appellant/Defendant 100% liable and awarded RM507,984.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff for loss of future earnings. Meanwhile, the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal, disputing the award of RM40,000.00 in general damages for severe traumatic brain injury, arguing that it fails to reflect the gravity of the injury sustained. This appeal, therefore, revolves around contested findings of liability and the adequacy of damages awarded.

The Overarching Issues

[2] The first issue for this Court's consideration is whether the learned Sessions Court Judge erred in law or fact in finding the First Appellant 100% liable for the accident.

[3] The second issue is whether the Sessions Court correctly awarded RM507,984.00 to the Respondent/Plaintiff for loss of future earnings.

[4] The third and final issue concerns the quantum of damages awarded for the injury suffered by the Respondent/Plaintiff.

The Parties' Respective Contentions on the Issue of Liability

[5] According to the Respondent/Plaintiff, on 22 May 2017 at approximately 11.30pm, he was was driving a motorcar with registration number WPD 8908 on his way from Damansara to his home in Subang via the NKVE Highway. The Respondent/Plaintiff went on to assert that upon reaching the turnoff (at Exit 104) to the Subang Toll Plaza, he continued to travel in the left lane of the road and but due to the negligence and/or breach of duty on the part of the First Appellant/Defendant who was driving a lorry with registration number BPA 5113, which was travelling in the same direction as the Respondent/Plaintiff but was at the right lane, suddenly changed course and entered into the path of the Respondent/Plaintiff's motorcar thereby causing the accident.

[6] In their Defence, the Appellants/Defendants denied that an accident had happened between the lorry BPA 5113 driven by the First Appellant/Defendant and the motorcar WPD 8908 driven by the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Appellants/Defendants claimed that the Plaintiff's motorcar had collided into the "back left" of the First Appellant/Defendant's lorry. In the alternative, the Appellants/Defendants' case was that in the event that an accident had occurred, the accident was due to the sole negligence of the Respondent/Plaintiff and/or there was substantial contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent/Plaintiff.

The Findings of the Sessions Court on the Issue of Liability

[7] As noted, the learned Sessions Court Judge attributed 100% liability to the First Appellant/Defendant.

[8] The learned Sessions Court Judge based her findings primarily on the testimony and evidence presented by SP1, the Investigating Officer. The investigations by SP1 revealed that the accident was between the motorcar driven by the Respondent/Plaintiff and the lorry driven by the First Appellant/Defendant. Phot