Liability was apportioned 20% against the Defendant and 80% against the Plaintiffs, with specific damages awarded for future nursing care and medical expenses.

[1] The learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") held that the liability between the Defendant/respondent and the Plaintiffs/appellants is to be apportioned by 50:50. In other words the Defendant is liable towards the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs on the apportionment of 50% liability over 50% contributory liability on the part of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs. Therefore, he awarded the Plaintiffs damages against the Defendant on a 50% liability basis.

[2] The Defendant is ordered to pay general damages to the 1st Plaintiff of RM497,000.00 and special damages of RM665,975.90.

[3] The Defendant is also ordered to pay general damages to the 2nd Plaintiff of RM25,000.00 and special damages of RM5,398.00.

[4] Aggrieved by that decision, the Plaintiffs appealed and so as the Defendant cross-appealed on liability and quantum.

[5] On the agreement of the parties, the issues of liability and quantum are to be dealt with separately by the Court. Upon hearing the appeal on liability, I dismissed the Plaintiffs' appeal and allowed the Defendant's cross-appeal. I apportioned liability of 20% for the Defendant over 80% against the Plaintiffs. The grounds of my decision in respect of liability has been provided and filed under Encl 49.

[6] On the issue of quantum, the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs' submissions is centred on the following issues under general damages:

(i) Future professional nursing care for the 1st Plaintiff provided a trained maid.

(ii) Pre and post - trial nursing care for the 1st Plaintiff provided by the 1st Plaintiff's mother.

(iii) Cost of future medical care for the 1st Plaintiff.

Future Professional Nursing Care For The 1st Plaintiff Provided By A Trained Maid

[7] The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that the learned SCJ has wrongly categorised the above claim under the head of Special Damages when it should be under the head of General Damages which I agree as this claim involves the assessment of damages in the future.

[8] It was the contention of the learned counsel that the 1st Plaintiff's mother (PW2) should only be allowed to nurse the 1st Plaintiff until her aged attained 60 years. PW2 is currently 58 years old. Thereafter, the 1st Plaintiff should be taken care by a trained maid.

[9] On the other hand, the learned SCJ was of the view that PW2 was able to provide the nursing care for the 1st Plaintiff until she reaches the age of 70 years in the year 2030. By then, the 1st Plaintiff shall attain the age of 34 years in 2030. The learned SCJ took into account a 1/3 deduction for contingencies and minus that with the normal male's age of life expectancy which is 72 years old to give the balance of 48 years (72 - 1/3 = 48).

[10] In calculating the number of years for the nursing care of the 1st Plaintiff by a normal maid, the learned SCJ deducted 48 years with the age of the 1st Plaintiff in the year 2030 which is 34 years to give a total period of 14 years (48 - 34 = 14).

[11] Based on the quotation ie Exh P72 produced by PW8 (Low Mui Fang) from the Agensi Pekerjaan Swasta Nusantara Sdn Bhd, the costs of 2 years for the supply of domestic maid which covers the cost for Maid's Permit (RM610.00), Journey Perform Visa (RM515.00), Housemaid Insurance (RM137.20), Medical fees (RM120.00) and Agency Fees (RM15,000.00) which give the total sum of RM16,382.20. This sum of RM16,382.20 is added to the cost for the maid salary of RM28,800.00 for 2 years [RM14,400.00 (RM1,200.00 per month) x 2] which give the total sum of RM45,182.20. This amount of RM45,182.20 is again multiplied by 7 to give the sum of RM316,275.40 f