Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2266
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MUHAMMAD NAZRI MAT YAACOB & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
AJAIB LAL & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-12BNCvC-117-08/2022]
The court determined that liability for a motor vehicle accident rests primarily with the driver who tailgated, overturning the lower court's equal liability ruling.
Headnote:(A) Motor vehicle accident - Negligence - Liability - The Session Court found both drivers equally negligent, attributing 50% liability to each party involved - The Appellants appealed claiming errors in the findings and the lack of testimony from a traffic police officer - The Court found the Appellants had abided by police instructions and that the deceased driver of the other vehicle was primarily at fault for tailgating - The court concluded that liability should be fully attributed to the Second and Third Respondents. (Paras 5, 19, 31)
Facts of the case:
The accident occurred on 10 July 2018 involving two lorries, one driven by the deceased and the other by the First Appellant. The First Respondent, an attendant in the deceased's lorry, sustained serious injuries. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Appellants were not liable as they had followed the traffic police's instructions to stop for a royal motorcade, while the deceased driver was negligent for tailgating. (Paras 26, 31)
Issues: The main issues were the determination of liability and whether the Session Court erred in attributing equal liability to the parties. (Paras 10, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the evidence indicated the deceased driver was primarily at fault for not maintaining a safe distance, leading to the collision. The Appellants were found to have acted reasonably under the circumstances. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: The Session Court's decision on liability was set aside; the Second and Third Respondents were found 100% liable for damages. (Paras 31)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the accident and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. session court's findings on liability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. appellants' arguments against liability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. response from second and third respondents. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's assessment of evidence and liability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court's intervention and conclusion on liability. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final ruling on damages and costs. (Para 32) |
The Appeal
[1] The Appellants were the Third and the Fourth Defendants respectively at the trial before the Session Court. On 26 August 2022 the Session Court had allowed the claim of the First Respondent (the Plaintiff at the Session Court) and accorded liability of 50% on the Appellants and the other 50% on the Second and Third Respondents who were the First and Second Defendants respectively at the Session Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellants lodged their appeal in this Court.
The Case Before The Session Court
[2] The First Respondent initiated a suit against the Appellants and the Second and Third Respondents as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10 July 2018. The First Respondent was an attendant in the lorry that bore the registration plate number WWC1267 driven by the deceased driver whom the Second Respondent represents whilst the Third Respondent is the registered owner. WWC1267 driven by the deceased driver had collided into the rear of the lorry with the registration plate number BNF3798 that the First Appellant was driving. The Second Appellant is the registered owner of BNF3798.
[3] The First Respondent, the attendant who was the passenger in lorry WWC1267 sat in front beside the deceased driver. He claimed that they were in the middle lane of the highway KM4.2 SPRINT and were travelling from IKEA Damansara to Mont Kiara when lorry BNF3798 from the left lane changed lanes into the middle lane where they were travelling on, without any signal or indication. BNF3798 then braked suddenly in front of WWC1267, that caused WWC1267 to collide into the rear of BNF3798. The driver of WWC1267 died in the collision.
[4] The Appellants' account was that they, in BNF3798 were driving in the middle lane when a policeman instructed for all vehicles to stop which they did. It was to enable a royal motorcade the right of way. WWC1267 then crashed into BNF3798 that the Appellants were in, from the rear.
The Session Court's Reasons For Its Decision
[5] As stated in para 24 of its judgment, on a balance of probabilities, the Session Court found that both the drivers of WWC1267 and BNF3798 were equally negligent that had resulted in the fateful collision. It was found that the First Respondent who was the passenger was entitled to receive damages from all the parties - 50% of the sum to be paid by the Second and Third Respondents whilst the other 50% was to be paid by the Appellants. The general damages amounted to RM262,000 and special damages of RM542,107.00.
[6] The Session Court observed both versions of the accident and noted that the Second and Third Respondent did not give evidence though their submissions supported the First Respondent's version. Even then, the Session Court noted that the Second and Third Respondents submitted that the First Respondent had failed to prove negligence on the part of the deceased driver and the Third Respondent as evidence showed that reasonable actions were taken with the immediate brake and tooting the lorry's horn.
[7] On the issue of liability, the Session Court premised its finding on the evidence of three witnesses - the investigating officer (PW1), the Plaintiff called as PW8 and the First Appellant (DW1). Together with the documentary evidence, the Session Court could not decide on which version was more probable. It found that the witnesses' testimonies could not be accepted fully.
[8] The Session Court found the following facts:
(a) BNF3798 was asked to
