SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 MarsdenLR 817

HIGH COURT MALAYA ALOR SETAR
CHONG KEOW – Appellant
Versus
SHAARI YAACOB – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 243 Of 1981]



Petitioner Advocates:Choe Kuan Him ,Respondent Advocate: Manjeet Singh Dhillon

JUDGMENT

Lim Beng Choon J:

[1] This claim is brought by the plaintiff as the administrator of the estate of Wang Kooi Tai @ Wong Foo Keak (deceased) for the benefit of the estate under s 8 of the Civil Law Act 1956 (Act 67) prior to the amendments made to it by virtue of Civil Law (Amendment) Act 1984. The plaintiff is also making a claim under s 7 of the Act for the benefits of the dependents of the deceased who are:

(a) the plaintiff - the widower

(b) Chong Siew Fong - daughter; 13 years of age

(c) Chong Siew Ch'ng - daughter; 12 years of age

(d) Chong Siew Yun - daughter 9; years of age

(e) Chong Siew Moi - daughter 6; years of age

[2] The accident took place on 8 December 1978 at or about 9.25 pm. The deceased was knocked down by a motorcar bearing registration number No AR 2691(" the motorcar ") driven by the defendant whilst she with her daughter and a friend, one Fan Ah Thai, were trying to cross the Alor Star/Sungei Patani road (" the road "). As a result of the accident, the deceased was killed instantly. At the end of the trial I held that the defendant was 70% to be blamed for the accident and the deceased 30%. I now give my reasons for the decision which I had arrived at the end of the trial.

[3] As the plaintiff did not witness the accident, needless to say that he was of no help to this Court regarding the question of liability. His evidence is solely aimed at establishing the monthly earnings of the deceased prior to her death and her contribution towards the family expenses. I shall deal with the evidence of the plaintiff when I assess the quantum of damages.

[4] The deceased's friend Fan Ah Thai, who at the material time, was walking along with the deceased and her daughter when they were trying to cross the road from the left edge of the road to the right side near a junction leading to Bedong town. As she had seen how the accident occurred, she was called to give evidence for the plaintiff as PW2. Her version of how the accident occurred is rather simple. In examination-in-chief she said that the accident happened on 8 December 1978 at about 9.25 pm when the deceased and she were crossing the road from the left side, as one faces Sungei Patani, in front of a petrol station near the junction leading to Bedong town to the right side of the road. Before crossing the road both she and the deceased looked to their left and to their right and they saw a car approaching them from their right but it was " very far away ". She was not quite positive as to how the car could have knocked down the deceased as she said, to use her own words " I suppose the car must be speeding because before we crossed the road, the car was (still) a long distance away. " Under cross-examination she said that the deceased was carrying her daughter when she was trying to cross the road and PW2 was following the deceased. She admitted that when she looked to her left and to her right and saw the approaching car she could only estimate that it was safe to cross to the other side of the road. She frankly admitted that her estimation could have been wrong. The learned defence Counsel put to her that the car she saw was in fact following a lorry and that when the lorry had passed her, she and the deceased started to cross over to the other side of the road. To this she denied quite unequivocally. She persisted in saying that there was only that motorcar that was on the left half of the road and there was no lorry. In re-examination she reiterated that according to her estimation the car was far away and had the car not been speeding the accident would not have occurred. She then went on to make this pertinent statement. " If we thought we could not cross the road we would not take the risk. "

[5] The defendant, the driver of the motorcar, AR 2691, gave his version in this way. He said that while he was driving his car along the road he was following a small lorry for about 5 minutes. His car was about 40 feet behind the lorry. The first time he saw the d


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top