JUDGMENT

Mahadev Shankar J:

[1] This is claim for damages arising out of a motor accident.

[2] The 1st plaintiff owned a small motor lorry in 1981 in which he transported pineapples which he had purchased from road side growers back to Muar for sale.

[3] The 2nd plaintiff is his son.

[4] On 17 March 1981 the 1st plaintiff was driving along the Muar-Yong Peng Road. His son was seated beside him acting as lorry attendant. About the 17th milestone on the right hand side of the road as one faces Yong Peng was a pondok which was a pineapple pick-up point.

[5] As one approached this from Muar the road was straight for a considerable distance.

[6] The 1st plaintiff's case is that as he approached the pick-up point, he put out his left hand side trafficator, slowed down and moved partly onto the grass verge on the left hand side of the road where he stopped and turned off his engine. Before he commenced this manoeuvre he says that he had sighted in his rear view mirror a lorry following him approximately 100 feet behind. He did not then see anything coming from the front.

[7] But no sooner had he returned off his engine he heard a violent impact from the rear of his lorry, lost consciousness and woke up in hospital.

[8] In cross-examination he maintained his version but some doubt was created as to how far behind him the lorry which collided into him was when the 1st plaintiff commenced his manoeuvre. In the trial before me, he claimed that the lorry was about a 100 feet away but in previous criminal proceedings in which the 1st defendant had been prosecuted, the 1st plaintiff admitted that he had said that it was only 29 feet away. The full circumstances in which that answer was given in the Traffic Court was not clarified before me.

[9] The 1st plaintiff's son, who gave evidence, was not of much assistance to the Court. However, the 1st plaintiff called the pineapple vendor who was minding the Pondok at the time of the accident. He impressed me as a witness of truth. He claimed that he was about 60 feet away when he first sighted the 1st plaintiff's lorry. It was then in motion. About 150 feet behind it was the 1st defendant's lorry travelling fast. He said that the 1st plaintiff's lorry drove on to the verge and stopped and about half a minute later the 1st defendant's lorry came and collided into its rear. At the time there was an oncoming car from Yong Peng. The 1st defendant's lorry then drove on and stopped some distance away.

[10] At the time of the accident, the 1st defendant was only 23 years old. He was driving a full sized lorry half loaded with oil palm fruits. He had come out into the main Muar-Yong Peng Road from a side road and claims to have been following the 1st plaintiff's lorry for about 1 to 2 miles. He claims he was about 40 feet behind. At the scene of the accident, he claims that the 1st plaintiff stopped suddenly on the road itself, without giving any previous warning of his intention to do so. No brake lights were seen. The 1st defendant then swerved to the right to pass but an oncoming taxi forced him to swerve back to the left and the impact occurred.

[11] The 1st defendant's attendant was a totally unimpressive witness. He did not inspire sufficient confidence in me to place any weight upon his testimony.

[12] By way of independent evidence there were some photographs of the 1st plaintiff's lorry. This shows that it received the full force of the impact at the rear off side corner. The damage is very severe because the entire rear body has been pushed out of joint and literally smashed into smithereens. The lorry is shown in situ in a ditch well below the road level. This place is completely over-grown with lallang and belukar. There are no photographs of the 1st defendant's lorry.

[13] There is also a sketch plan which creates as many problems as it solves. A to B is shown as the near side verge facing Yong Peng and is 8 feet. B to C the left half of the road is shown as 21 feet. There is a broken line marking the cen