Lord Russell of Killowen (delivering the judgment of the Board):

This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal Singapore by the plaintiff in a road accident case. The trial Judge, DC D'Cotta J concluded that the defendant (present respondent) was wholly to blame for the accident, in which the plaintiff was gravely injured. The Court of Appeal reversed that conclusion, and held that the plaintiff (present appellant) was wholly to blame.

At about 11 p.m. on 22 May 1973 the defendant was driving an Opel Commodore 2000 car, borrowed from his employer, from the City towards Changi Point where he lived. It is convenient to describe the city as to the North and Changi Point to the South to conform to the top and bottom of the police plan of the area. The defendant had been at a Chinese wedding party in the city, and was driving alone. The road was Upper Changi Road. It, perhaps curiously, had on the East side of the 'centre' dotted line a lane width of about 13ft, while the width of the lane on the West side was some 18ft.

Coming into Upper Changi Road on its East side was Tangmere Road. It forked just before joining Upper Changi Road, the right fork going towards the City. That fork had a continuous white line dividing it into two lanes.

The plaintiff had finished his work and on a reasonably elderly motor cycle was going home. This journey, to which he was habituated, involved his taking the right fork of Tangmere Road with a view to crossing the East lane of Upper Changi Road into its West lane and turning North therein towards the City.

According to the plaintiff's evidence he stopped at the stop sign at the debouchment of Tangmere road (a minor road), looked right, then left, then right. He saw the lights of a vehicle to his right, approaching him on Upper

Changi Road. In his evidence he said that he reckoned them to be 120 yards away, and that they were somewhere about the Chartered Bank. He said they were 'much beyond' the bus stop on the East side of Upper Changi Road which stop he marked on the police plan, if it was anywhere near to scale (which it may not have been), as about 135ft from his halting point in Tangmere Road. The plaintiff said that he crossed the East lane of Upper Changi Road, and turned towards the City having crossed the 'centre' dotted line by three or four feet (having moved up from first to second gear) when he observed a car coming at him, very near, overlapping the West lane of Upper Changi Road. He said he veered left to avoid being hit by the car, but was unsuccessful.

The defendant's car sustained considerable damage to its off front side, that wing and headlight assembly being broken, and the bumper bent. The damage to the motor cycle was as follows: front offside crash bar dented; cylinder oil tank broken; offside petrol tank dented; offside footrest bent. The damage, and the injuries to the plaintiff, were consistent with a glancing impact and the plaintiff's evidence of veering left too late to avoid collision, though neutral as to the point of impact.

The defendant (in summary) said that the plaintiff shot out of Tangmere Road into Upper Changi Road across his path; that he had no time to avoid the collision which happened about eight feet into the East lane of Upper Changi Road. He denied that it was a glancing impact.

The motor cycle as a result of the impact was thrown (with the plaintiff) to the West side of Upper Changi Road. The defendant said that he pulled up beyond Tangmere Road, but that he heard a commotion from a group of people emerging from a cafe or canteen and drove on because he was frightened. To explain his fear he said they were crying 'Assault, assault', but later said he had not heard those words but only a commotion. The next morning he told his employer that he had driven the car into a tree: the employer collected the car and took it to a repair shop. The defendant only reported the accident to the police when the police discovered the car in the repair s