The burden of proof in negligence claims lies with the plaintiffs, who must establish liability on the balance of probabilities, which they failed to do in this case.

A. Introduction

[1] This is a case that involves two accidents which had happened in one incident involving a motorcyclist, a car and a backhoe. The first accident was between the motorcyclist and the car, whilst the second accident was between the motorcyclist and the backhoe which was consequential to the first accident. The motorcyclist, Muhammad Syafiq bin Ibrahim (the deceased) had succumbed to his injuries and died at the accident scene.

[2] By a writ issued on 19 November 2020, the deceased's parents (the plaintiffs) brought an action against the defendants claiming damages as dependants of the deceased.

[3] Upon considering all evidence directly in concern, I dismissed the plaintiffs claim against all of the defendants. I found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims against the defendants on the balance of probabilities.

[4] The plaintiffs are now presenting their appeals before the High Court against my decision on liability and quantum. My findings are explained hereinbelow.

B. Key Background Of Facts

[5] On 25 July 2018 around 5.15 pm, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration number VBU 6145 towards Puchong. Meanwhile, the first defendant (SD1) and the second defendant (SD2) were also travelling towards the same direction as the deceased. SD1 was driving a car (Myvii) bearing registration number WYC 6880; whilst SD2 was driving a backhoe bearing registration number WXX 849. The third defendant in this case was the owner of the backhoe driven by SD2. The third defendant was not called as witness in this trial.

[6] Upon reaching Jalan Kajang/Puchong (South Klang Valley Expressway-SKVE), the deceased had collided into (or grazed) the left rear of SD1's car. Due to the impact, the deceased was thrown off from his motorcycle and landed on the road in front of the SD2's backhoe; which at that material time was moving in front of the SD's car. SD2 was not able to brake in time. In consequence, the deceased had been ran over by the four wheels of SD's backhoe. The deceased died instantly at the accident scene.

[7] Six witnesses were called during trial namely:

i) SP1: Mawarni Binti Abdul Rahman - Chemist, Department of Chemistry Malaysia

ii) SP2: Leong Pei Jean - Account Clerk (appearing on behalf of the deceased's employer)

iii) SP3: Insp/P Erma Amera Bt Ahmad Saufy - Investigating Officer

iv) SP4: Ibrahim Bin Muhamad - First Plaintiff (father of the deceased)

v) SD1: Nor Asma Binti Ab Razak - First Defendant

vi) SD2: Kong Kim Vooi - Second Defendant

[8] I shall next in summary fashion, set out the salient arguments advanced by the parties in this case to provide better appreciation of the evidence produced before this Court during trial. Some of the facts however will emerge later in the analysis section as they would be better understood when mentioned in such fashion.

C. Submissions On Liability

The Plaintiffs' Version

i) Against The First Defendant

[9] The plaintiffs' counsel admitted that the deceased had collided into (or grazed) the left rear of SD1's car, but it was due to SD1's negligence in changing her driving lane from right to left. The plaintiffs' counsel further asserted that SD1 had negligently changed her driving lane from right to left due to the closure of the furthest right lane due to the activation of the contra lane. SD1's negligence had ultimately caused the deceased's motorcycle to collide into (or grazed) the left rear of SD1's car.

[10] The plaintiffs' counsel prompted this Court con