The Plaintiff must prove negligence in accident claims, and failure of the Defendants to testify results in acceptance of the Plaintiff's evidence, attributing full liability to them.

[1] This is my grounds of judgment in respect of the appeal filed by the Defendants on the issue of liability ie that the Defendants are 100% liable for causing the accidents.

B) Backgrounds Facts

i. Parties

[2] At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle bearing a registration number of BNW 5056.

[3] The 1st defendant is the registered owner of a motorcar bearing a registration number of V6040 and the 2nd defendant was driving the motorcar at the material time.

ii. The Trial

[4] The trial took 2 days on 20th July 2022 and 3rd August 2022. The Plaintiff had closed his case by calling 2 witnesses which are the Investigation Officer and the Plaintiff. The Defendants closed their case without calling any witnesses.

Plaintiff's Version

[5] On 7 July 2019 at 5.30 pm, the Plaintiff was riding a motorcycle bearing a registration number of BNW 5056, heading from Temerloh to Kuala Lumpur.

[6] It is the Plaintiff's version of the accident that he was riding his motorcycle on the left lane and upon reaching the KM 51 of the KL-Karak Highway, a motorcar bearing a registration number of V6040 driven by the 2nd defendant suddenly changed its course from the right lane to the left lane. This has caused the Plaintiff's motorcycle to collide into the left rear of the motorcar.

iv. Defendants' Version

[7] It is the Defendants' version of the accident that the 2nd defendant was driving a motorcar bearing a registration number V6040 and upon reaching the KM 51 of the KL-Karak Highway, a motorcycle bearing a registration number BNW 5065 suddenly collided into the left rear of his motorcar.

C) Findings

i. The Burden To Prove The Negligence Lies On The Plaintiff

[8] Even though the defendants did not give evidence in court on both trial dates, the Plaintiff still needs to prove his case. In accident matters, it is the duty of the Plaintiff to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. The legal principle in respect of this issue has been concisely enunciated in the High court case of Che Pah Itam v. Chang Bek Lee , [1998] 1 MLJ 411 , as follows:

"Although the defendant had not adduced any evidence, he had nevertheless filed his statement of defence denying any liability whatsoever for the said accident.

In the absence of the defendant's evidence is the court compelled to accept into the plaintiff's version?

It is trite law that the onus of proving negligence lies on the plaintiff. In Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali , 1971 MarsdenLR 284 Ong CJ (as he then was) held:

In a negligence action the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of defendant's negligence.

Hashim Yeop A Sani J (as he then was) addressing the same issue in Ng Chul Sia v. Maimon Ali , 1982 MarsdenLR 292 , had this to say at p 111:

When an accidental harm is done it is not for the doer to excuse himself by proving that the accident was inevitable and that ther