Back
2022 MarsdenLR 1779
MAHKAMAH SESYEN PULAU LANGKAWI
AZMI AHMAD & SATU LAGI LWN. SHUKRI FADZIL
[Saman No: KD-A53KJ-11-03/2021]
In negligence claims, the burden of proof always lies with the plaintiff, even if the defendant is absent from court.
Headnote:(A) Negligence – Plaintiff's burden of proof – The negligence action requires the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof regardless of the defendant's presence or absence in court – Established in Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali – The plaintiff must prove the defendant's negligence to succeed. (Para 6)
(B)
Liability determination – Court found that the defendant acted appropriately and had seen traffic before turning, thus the deceased bore full responsibility for the accident – Referenced cases: Mahyuddin Hamid & Anor v. Zhamaluddin Shamsuddin & Anor and Dewaramah Ellapin v. Ibrahim Abdul Hamid & Anor substantiate this conclusion (Paras 8, 11).
(C)
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim due to insufficient evidence and lack of legal accountability for the defendant (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff’s claim concerned an accident involving a deceased motorcyclist and an MPV on 23 December 2019 resulting from the defendant's actions.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof regarding the defendant’s negligence, leading to dismissal of the claim.
Issues
: The primary issue focused on the burden of proof in negligence claims and the consequences of the defendant's actions during the incident.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the necessity of proving negligence before holding the defendant liable, relying on established legal precedents.
Result:
The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs.
PENGHAKIMAN
[1] Pada 11 Mei 2022 setelah Mahkamah mendengar segala keterangan saksi-saksi Plaintif dan Defendan serta menilai hujahan bertulis kedua-dua pihak, Mahkamah atas imbangan kebarangkalian memutuskan si mati bertanggungan 100% atas kemalangan.
[2] Plaintif tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah dan memfailkan rayuan terhadap liabiliti dan kuantum bagi kehilangan tanggungan.
Latar Belakang Kes
[3] Tuntutan Plaintif-plaintif adalah berdasarkan kemalangan yang berlaku pada 23 Disember 2019 di antara motosikal no RK 3442 yang ditunggang oleh si mati dan motokar MPV yang dipandu oleh Defendan.
[4] Plaintif-plaintif dalam pernyataan tuntutan telah memplidkan di perenggan 5 bahawa pada 23 Disember 2019, lebih kurang pukul 12.20 tengah hari, si mati sedang menunggang motosikal no RK 3442 dan apabila sampai di simpang masuk Kampung Kumpulan Jalan Ulu Melaka, semasa si mati sedang bergerak lurus, tiba-tiba motokar MPV no KV 9879 B yang dipandu oleh Defendan dari arah yang sama, telah dengan cuainya, membelok ke kanan untuk masuk ke simpang di sebelah kanan si mati tanpa sebarang isyarat atau amaran dan menyebabkan perlanggaran.
[5] Defendan dalam pembelaan beliau hanya mengakui bahawa pada atau lebih kurang pada tarikh dan tempat yang dinyatakan, satu kemalangan telah berlaku yang melibatkan motosikal si mati dan motokar MPV Defendan tetapi kandungan selanjutnya di perenggan 5 adalah dinafikan sama sekali.
Prinsip Undang-Undang
[6] Beban membuktikan kes sentiasa terletak di bahu plaintif walaupun defendan tidak hadir ke mahkamah. Adalah menjadi undang-undang yang mantap bahawa beban membuktikan kes sentiasa terletak di bahu Plaintif sama ada Defendan hadir ataupun tidak ke Mahkamah. Prinsip ini jelas dinyatakan di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali , , di mana Mahkamah menyatakan:
"In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the defendant's negligence. Evidence is the foundation of proof, with which it must not be confounded. Proof is that which leads to a conclusion as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts which are the subject of inquiry. Evidence, if accepted and believed, may result in proof, but it is not necessarily proof of itself."; see 15 Halsbury (3rd Edn) p 260.
[7] Prinsip yang sama juga dinyatakan di dalam kes Kunasegaran Manickam v. Baula Singh Kipa Singh & Anor & Another Case , Mahkamah menyatakan:
"[2] The fact that the defendants had not been called to rebut the plaintiff's case did not mean judgment must be entered in favour of the plaintiff. The question of tilting the balance of probabilities in the plaintiff's favour would only arise where the plaintiff has proved his case."
Alasan Keputusan Mahkamah Atas Liabiliti
1. Keterangan Pegawai Penyiasat (IO) Tidak Menyokong Keterangan Plaintif
[8] Menurut IO kes ini diklarifikasikan sebagai "no further action" oleh Timbalan Pendakwa raya (TPR) setelah ia dirujuk kepada TPR. Mahkamah merujuk kes Mahyuddin Hamid & Anor v. Zhamaluddin Shamsuddin & Anor [2021] MLJU 1620; [2021] 5 LNS 30 di mana Mahkamah menyatakan:
"Discernibly, there was, in the present case, no action taken against the 1st defendant. Nor was there any prosecution brought against him. Had the evidence loomed large, appearing to show the 1st defendant's negligence as the cause of the accident, he would have been facing charges in court. That is not the present case, however. Considering the apparent absence of charges, the 1st defendant is not, in my judgment, prevented from tethering reliance to such a fact as part of the evidence supporting his defence."
[9] Selain itu, dalam siasatan IO, terdapat keterangan saksi bebas bernama Muhammad Farhi bin Noor Muhammad yang menyatakan terdapat sebuah motosikal bergerak laju di sebelah kanan motor van yang beliau pandu lalu melanggar MPV yang sedang membelok.
[10] Jadi, Mahkamah mengambil kira keputusan kes N
