JUDGMENT

Haji Lamin Bin Haji Mohd Yunus FCJ:

At the time of the accident the plaintiff (PW2) was a fruit-seller at a market and at about 9.00 p.m. on 26 June 1983 she was a passenger in a motorcar No. TE 3467 which was proceeding from Kuantan towards the direction of Gambang on their way home at Tanah Puteh Baru, Batu 3. She was the only passenger in the car and she was sitting in the front seat beside the driver, who is her husband. According to her evidence, on arrival at the junction going into Tanah Puteh Baru, her husband stopped the car at a point where he intended to turn right into the road leading to Tanah Puteh Baru. Before he came to a stop, he gave a hand signal by putting out his right hand. PW2 saw a motor van coming from the opposite direction and in front of it was a motorcycle. After the motorcycle had passed, the motor van with registration number CT 6466, collided into PW2's car. According to PW2 the impact on her car was on the nearside somewhere in the centre. She also said that upon impact her car turned around and when it stopped, it was facing Kuantan. She said that before the accident the van was travelling on her side of the road. When she was cross-examined that if it was so then the van should be on her side of the road after the accident, her answer was that when the van collided into her car, her car "sudah menyerong" meaning in a slanting position when the van came and collided into her car at a point to the rear of her seat. PW1, who drew the sketch plan (P1) said in cross-examination that broken pieces of glass were found mostly at P and in his opinion looking at the damage of the car, the car must have crossed the centre white line a little into the other lane.

On liability, that was in brief the case for the plaintiff. For the defence, no witness was called.

From the sketch plan, broken pieces of glass are mostly found around the centre white line and in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is always a safe guide to adopt that the point of impact is at or around the point where pieces of glass are mostly found. The defence did not produce any evidence to dispute this. PW2 insisted that her car did stop at the junction and it was stationary when the van collided into it. She also said her car was on her side of the road. The fact that her car was stationary at the centre white line when the impact took place provides corroborative evidence to strengthen further the mute evidence of the presence of broken pieces of glass at the centre white line at which being the point of impact. PW1, who drew the sketch plan, has expresssed his views in regard to the position of the car at the time of the collision. I am not inclined to place great reliance on his opinion as he did not witness the accident and therefore it was mere conjecture. PW2 never admitted that her car had crossed the centre white line but merely said "menyerong". In all probability what she had said about the van travelling on her side of the road was true for the van must have crossed the centre white line a little and in the attempt to avoid a collision the driver of the van tried to swerve to the left but it was too late so that the offside from of the van, as evidenced by the damage to the van, knocked into the nearside of the car and sent it spinning. This explains the presence of broken pieces of glass around the centre white line. If the van had been travelling along its side of the road, in the first place there would not have been a collision. Secondly assuming that the van was travelling on its correct side of the road for a collision to take place the car must have crossed the white line and since it was still in motion, at the sight of the van approaching one can expect both drivers to take evasive action. The driver of the van tried to swerve to the left while the driver of the car tried to swerve to the right but it was too late and a collision took place - hence the damage to the van being on the front offside while to