The court affirmed the full liability of the Defendant and upheld the SCJ's reasonable awards for damages citing adequate evidence and established guidelines for personal injury compensation.

JUDGMENT

Wong Hok Chong JC:

[1] These 2 appeals emanate from a single suit in the Sessions Court PA-A53KJ-184-09/2017. The Sessions Court Judge found the Defendant 100% liable for the accident and awarded damages accordingly.

[2] The Plaintiff has appealed against the quantum of damages awarded, saying that it is too low. This is Appeal No PA-12B-64-10/2018 (Appeal No 64).

[3] The Defendant has appealed against liability and the quantum of damages awarded, saying that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and that the damages awarded is too high. This is Appeal No PA-12B-63-10/2018 (Appeal No 63).

Background

[4] The background facts are as follows. At about 10:00 am on 26 May 2016, the Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle along Lebuh Bishop. As he was passing by the junction with Lebuh Penang, the Defendant driving a jeep (AEP 1851) travelling along Lebuh Penang coming from the Plaintiff's left failed to stop and give way to the Plaintiff, and collided into the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had the right of way. This is not in dispute. The Defendant should have stopped at the junction to give way to the Plaintiff. This was the evidence of the Plaintiff and the Investigating Officer. The Defendant did not give evidence.

Sessions Court

[5] The SCJ found the Defendant to be 100% liable for the accident and awarded inter alia the following damages:

(1) Damages for the injuries:

(a) L2 fracture of the lumbar spine = RM30,000.00

(b) Fracture of the left ankle = RM20,000.00

(2) Loss of income and medical expenses:

(a) Loss of income during sick leave = RM27,898.00

(b) Loss of future income = RM96,768.00.

(c) Medical expenses (Private) = RM44,234.75

Plaintiff's Appeal Against Quantum

[6] The Plaintiff's appeal is against the quantum of damages for the 2 injuries. He say that it should be higher.

L2 Fracture Of The Lumbar Spine

[7] The Plaintiff says that the SCJ, in awarding the damages for L2 fracture of the lumbar spine, failed to take into consideration that there was kyphosis.

[8] The SCJ had found that, on the balance of probability, there was no kyphosis. Kyphosis was only mentioned once in the initial medical report. The later reports by both the Plaintiff's and the Defendant's expert reports make no mention of kyphosis. Her finding was based on the evidence before her.

[9] The SCJ did not err in finding that there was no kyphosis.

[10] Then, the Plaintiff proceeds to say that quantum of RM30,000.00 awarded for the L2 fracture of the lumbar spine was too low. The Plaintiff submitted that a sum of RM100,000.00 was more appropriate, whereas the Defendant proposed a sum of RM15,000.00.

[11] The SCJ's award was within range of between RM19,500.00 and 38,500.00 recommended by the "Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards as at 17 April 2014" for such injuries.

[12] In the premise, the quantum was reasonable and cannot be said to be so manifestly low as to justify appellate intervention.

Fracture Of The Left Ankle

[13] The Plaintiff says that quantum of RM20,000.00 for the fracture of the left ankle was too low. The Plaintiff submitted for a sum of RM50.000.00 was more appropriate, whereas the Defendant proposed a sum of RM15,000.00.

[14] The SCJ's award was within range of between RM13,000.00 and 24,000.00 recommended by the "Revised Compendium of Personal Injury Awards as at 17 April 2014" for such injuries.

[15] In the premise, the quantum was reasonable and cannot be said to be so manifestly low as to justify appellate intervention.

Defendant's Appeal Against Liability And Quantum

[16] I turn now to the Defendant's appeal is against liability and the quantum of damages.

Liability

[17] On liability, the Defendant says that the Plaintiff was 20% contributory negligent for causing the accident because the Plaintiff should have been more careful.

[18] This is a baseless allegation. The plain fact is that the Plaintiff had the right of way and it is the Defendant who had to stop and give way. Further, the Defendant did not even bother to give evidence at trial.

[19