JUDGMENTBY: CHUA J

(delivering the judgment of the court): At the conclusion of the hearing we allowed the appeal indicating that we would give our reasons at a later date. We now proceed to do so.

The first respondent, a passenger in a bus No. SH. 706 belonging to the second respondent, was injured as a result of a collision between bus No. SH. 706 and a bus No. SH. 190 belonging to the third respondent. She brought an action in the High Court against the first and second respondents as well as against the appellant, the owner and rider of motor cycle No. SAG. 3250 which was also involved in the same collision. The first respondent alleged her injuries were caused by the negligent driving of the servant of the second respondent, or alternatively by the negligent driving of the servant of the third respondent, or alternatively by the negligent riding of the appellant or alternatively on the part of any two or all of them.

The High Court gave judgment for the first respondent in the sum of$ 5,500 against the appellant the owner of the motor cycle and dismissed with costs the claim against the second and third respondents. It was ordered that the first, second and third respondents costs of the action as between party and party be taxed and paid by the appellant.

The appellant appeals against that part of the learned judges decision with regard to liability.

The undisputed facts were shortly these. The appellant stopped his motor cycle in the middle of River Valley Road intending to turn right into Leonie Hill Road. Bus SH. 706 (hereinafter referred to as the Hock Lee bus) was coming from the opposite direction along River Valley Road. Bus SH. 190 (hereinafter referred to as the Tay Koh Yat bus) was coming along River Valley Road behind the appellants motor cycle. On reaching the appellants motor cycle the Tay Koh Yat bus suddenly swerved to its right collided with the motor cycle and went to the wrong side of the road and collided into the Hock Lee bus. As a result of the collision between the two buses the first respondent, who was a passenger in the Hock Lee bus, sustained personal injuries.

During the trial it was conceded by the appellant that the driver of the Hock Lee bus was not to blame at all. The third respondent similarly attributed no fault to the driver of the Hock Lee bus. The contest was then between the appellant and the third respondent. The learned trial judge said:

"The sole question in issue was whether the bus driver of the Tay Koh

Yat bus (of the second defendant) who was travelling along his correct

side of the road down River Valley Road away from the City down a

slight slope or the third defendant, motorcyclist, who had previously

been travelling down the same slope ahead of the bus or both were to

blame for the collision which occurred between the two buses. The Hock

Lee bus had been all along travelling on its own correct side of the

road in the opposite direction."

The evidence of the appellant was that he was stationary in the middle of the road. He heard a loud sound behind him. When he turned his head round to look, the Tay Koh Yat bus came and collided into him and then went to the other side of the road and collided into the Hock Lee bus.

The driver of the Tay Koh Yat bus said that he was travelling behind a lorry at a speed of between 15 to 20 m.p.h. He saw a motor cycle in the middle of the road waiting to turn right into Leonie Hill Road. After the lorry had passed the motor cycle, on the motor cycles left, and when he was 7 to 10 ft. from the motor cycle, the motor cycle suddenly swerved left across his path. He swerved violently to the right to avoid colliding with the motor cycle and went to the wrong side of the road and on seeing vehicles approaching from the front he swerved to the left and there was a collision with the Hock Lee bus which was coming from the opposite direction.

The driver of the Hock Lee bus said that he did no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document