Both parties in a motorcycle collision were found equally liable due to their failure to exercise due care, impacting the quantum of damages awarded.

[1] The collision occurred between two motorcycles with the registration No AHE 5905 (plaintiff) and AHN 3512 (defendant) at KM 8, Jalan Tanjong Belanja-Manong, Ipoh on 4 January 2014 around 9:00 pm. Liability was equally distributed between the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff's claim for general and special damages was allowed together with costs and interest.

[2] The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the decision has filed an appeal on the issue of liability and quantum. A cross-appeal was also lodged by the defendants on the issue of liability only.

The Plaintiff's Version

[3] The plaintiff's version was that he was riding his motorcycle from bottom to top when he was collided into by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant is entirely to be blamed in this accident.

The Defendant's Version

[4] The defendant also from the same direction (bottom to top) was making a right turn and alleged that the plaintiff collided into him from the rear and is the sole cause of the accident.

Findings of This Court On The Issue of Liability

[5] The investigation officer testified on the direction of both motorcycles that is from bottom to top with the defendant turning right. Scratch marks were seen in the centre of the road and marked as B. The investigation confirmed that this is not a collision from the rear but a collision to the side of the defendant's motorcycle.

Q: Berdasarkan siasatan bagaimana kemalangan?

A: Mohon rujuk IP: Kemalangan berlaku kedua-dua kenderaan dari Manong ke Tg Belanja iaitu bawah ke atas. Di tempat kejadian motorsikal No AHN 3512 membelok ke kanan dan motorsikal No AHP 5905 daripada belakang telah terlanggar belah kanan motorsikal AHN.

Q: Hak laluan utama siapa?

A: Jalan terus.

Q: Sebelum belok kanan dia harus beri laluan pada plaintif?

A: Ya.

[6] Although the plaintiff has a right of way as he was heading straight but evidence was lead to show that the plaintiff himself was riding more towards the middle of the road when he should have kept to the left side. The investigation clearly shows that the point of impact was at the middle of the road. Therefore, in my view, if both the plaintiff and the defendant had maintained a proper look out, this accident could have been avoided entirely.

[7] The plaintiff testified that he was travelling from bottom to top and heading straight ahead when the defendant suddenly made a turn to the right, therefore, the defendant is entirely to be blamed in this accident. However based on his testimony in Court, he was travelling more to the centre of the road when he should have kept more to the left (A2) as he was going straight ahead.

Q: Berapa lama tunggang motorsikal?

A: Mulai tingkatan 4.

Q: Bagaimana perlanggaran berlaku - sila tunjukkan?

A: Motorsikal itu dari sebelah kiri saya dan saya dibelakang dan bila dekat dia tiba-tiba belok ke kanan.

Q: Cdng - Sepatutnya jika kamu hendak terus perlu rapat dengan A2?

A: Tidak setuju.

Q: Ketika kemalangan ada pakai helmet?

A: Tidak pasti.

[8] Based on the above also, the plaintiff had seen the defendant and yet failed to take preventive steps to avoid this accident. In his testimony, he clearly said that the defendant was in front of him. The investigation officer also testified that vehicles were allowed to turn right at that place. Therefore it was the failure on the part of the plaintiff to keep a proper look out and to ride his motorcycle to the left (A2) that caused