Chang Min Tat FJ (delivering the judgment of the Court):

The facts in this case, save in one particular, are largely undisputed.

The appellants are operators of a service station and service cars as well as wash them. As part of the services they provide they are prepared when required by their customers to send the cars back to their houses or other addresses given by them. The second respondent who was at all relevant times in their employ and held a driving licence used to perform the additional service of returning the vehicles. The first appellant was a customer of some standing and he used to get his car sent back to him. This saved him from having to wait. On the day in question, he sent his car for a wash and in the absence of the first appellant whom he usually asked, he directed the second respondent to send the car to a certain address and if he was not there to return to the service station where he would pick up the car later. After the wash, the second respondent drove to this address but not finding the first respondent there, he returned to the service station as instructed. On the way back, at the entrance to the service station, he knocked down an oncomi