JUDGMENTBY: TAN AH TAH J, RIGBY J, WEE CHONG JIN J

TAN AH TAH J This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment awarding the sum of$ 21,475 to the plaintiffs in respect of the death of one Lee Ah Song, a trishaw-rider, whose trishaw was involved in a collision with the defendants motor car which was being driven by the defendant along Geylang Road. In his judgment the learned trial Judge held that the defendant was solely to blame for the accident.

There was a passenger in the trishaw at the time of the collision. According to this passenger the trishaw was proceeding straight down Geylang Road when it was run down from behind by the defendants motor car. In his cross-examination he denied that the deceased while riding his trishaw swerved to the right in order to avoid a van which was parked on the near side of the road.

The defendant gave a different version of the collision. He said that he first saw the trishaw when it was about 50 to 60 yards ahead of him and as he approached it the deceased suddenly swerved to the right as there was a van in front of the trishaw. The defendant also said that as the deceased was swerving to the right he was perhaps 10 feet behind the deceased. He then went on to describe how the collision occurred in spite of his efforts to avoid the trishaw.

In this Court counsel for the defendant does not seek to dispute that his client was guilty of negligence in driving the motor car. The submissions of counsel for the defendant in this appeal can be conveniently considered under two heads, the first of which relates to the question whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the second to the question of damages.

As to the first of these matters, counsel for the defendant contends that the learned trial Judge failed to consider and decide whether the deceased was at fault in the management of the trishaw and in his manner of driving it, and whether if he was at fault the injuries sustained by him resulted from his fault. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge failed to find all the primary facts in issue between the parties.

It is clear from a perusal of his judgment that the learned trial Judge made no finding of fact on the question whether the trishaw swerved to its right in the manner alleged by the defendant. He dealt with that question in the following words:--

"But even on the assumption that the deceased did so swerve to his

right this was only what any competent driver of a vehicle behind him

must have expected him to do in view of the parked van in front of him.

The defendant admitted that he first saw the trishaw some 50-60 yards

ahead of him in this brightly-lit road. At the point where the accident

took place the road was more than 32 feet wide and one-way traffic at

that. Quite obviously even if the swerve did occur, any careful and

experienced driver should have anticipated it and given a very wide

berth to the trishaw. On the contrary, however, the collision appears

to have taken place if anything nearer to the left hand curb than to

the traffic divider on the right."

The learned trial Judge clearly considered the question of liability on the assumption that the trishaw swerved to its right, without making a specific finding of fact that it did so swerve. There is another question of fact with which the learned trial Judge does not appear to have dealt, and that is the question how far the motor car was away from the trishaw when the swerve took place, if in fact it did take place.

The learned trial Judge stated his conclusion on the question of liability in the following words:--

"I have no doubt that this accident arose because the defendant was not

keeping a proper look-out and negligently collided with this trishaw

when he had yards of space to his right in which to avoid it. I hold

him solely to blame for the accident."

I can find

Click Here to Read the rest of this document