Back
2011 MarsdenLR 3668
MAHKAMAH SESYEN SHAH ALAM
LIM YOONG LING LWN. ENID YOONG NYUK YOON
[Saman No: 2-53-518-2008]
In road traffic cases, the party attempting to overtake must ensure safety; failure results in heightened liability, as established in comparative negligence principles.
Headnote:(A) Road Traffic Regulations - Standard of care - Comparative negligence - Plaintiff 75% liable, Defendant 25% liable in a road traffic accident resulting in injuries - The court highlighted that the plaintiff failed to ensure safe overtaking conditions, while the defendant did signal to turn right. (Paras 1, 10, 19)
(B) Duty of care - The responsibility of the party overtaking is emphasized; negligence in overtaking results in greater liability. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff collided with the Defendant's vehicle while attempting to overtake; the accident occurred due to the Defendant's maneuvering without a signal and the Plaintiff's speed. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Defendant 25% liable and Plaintiff 75% liable for negligence. Damages awarded based on comprehensive evidence including testimonies and medical reports. (Paras 19, 21)
Issues: The primary issues involved the comparative fault of both parties regarding the accident and the adequacy of signal indications before the collision. (Paras 8-9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Plaintiff's failure to confirm safe overtaking conditions significantly contributed to the accident, and hence imposed greater fault on the Plaintiff. The judgment aligns with established precedents on liability in overtaking scenarios. (Paras 19-20)
Result: The court upheld the finding of liability as stated, awarding specified damages based on the injuries sustained.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the road accident and witness accounts. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. introduction to issues of liability and quantum. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's analysis of conflicting evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. judicial reasoning on negligence and liability. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. determination of liability percentages. (Para 19 , 20) |
[1] Di dalam kes ini, plaintif telah memfailkan tuntutan terhadap defendan akibat dari satu kemalangan jalanraya pada 24 Mac 2008 melibatkan kenderaan motorvan Avanza No WJA 7954 dipandu oleh defendan dengan motorsikal Kawasaki No. WEM 9407 yang ditunggang oleh plaintif. Setelah mendengar keterangan saksi dan penghujahan kedua-dua pihak, saya mendapati bahawa terdapat unsur kecuaian pada kedua-dua pihak. Saya memutuskan bahawa defendan cuai 25% dan plaintif 75% di dalam kemalangan ini. Plaintif merayu terhadap isu liabiliti manakala defendan merayu terhadap isu kuantum.
[2] Berikut adalah alasan saya di atas isu liabiliti dan kuantum.
Versi Plaintif
[3] Mengikut versi plaintif di dalam pemeriksaan utama, beliau mengatakan bahawa: Q: How did the accident happened? A: I am from bottom to top from Jalan 19/22. I saw a car Toyota Avanza driven slowly on the left hand side of the road. I wanted to overtake him. I gave a signal, I honked him. I pressed my signal in order to overtake. I did not see any response from him. Therefore I overtake him. Then the car banged on my left hand side. Q: How did the car hit you on your left side? A: The car wanted to make a U turn.
[4] Berikut adalah laporan polis bertarikh 20 Jun 2008 yang dibuat oleh plaintif: Pada hari 24 March 2008 lebih kurang jam 1.10 tengahari saya memandu kenderaan motorsikal mts bernombor WEM Jenis Kawasaki dari tempat tinggal SS/2 hendak pergi tempat kedai makan dengan melalui s 19/22. Terdapat sebuah kereta bernombor BJA 7954 Jenis Toyota Avanza dipandu dengan sangat perlahan. Pada ketika itu saya cuba memotong kereta tersebut dari sebelah kanan dengan membunyikan hon kerana pemandu itu memandu mengikut tepi kiri dengan perlahan. Tiba-tiba pemandu itu membelok masuk ke simpang kanan tanpa menyalakan lampu isyarat Oleh itu, kereta tersebut terlanggar motorsikal saya dan saya dengan motorsikal menghentam ke dinding di tepi sungai.
Versi Defendan
[5] Mengikut keterangan defendan di dalam keterangannya, beliau mengatakan seperti berikut: Q: How did this accident occur? A: I was going to turn right to go home. There was no oncoming traffics. I heard horns from back. I notice a motorbike coming from behind very fast. I was already going to turn at that point of time. So when I heard the two horns, I straightened my steering wheel and I braked so allowing him or her are whoever to overtake me. But he overtook me, hit my wing mirror. The glass broke. My Avanza is quite high. The main impact is the wing mirror. Actually there was minimal damage to my vehicle. Q: Did you put on the signal light? A: Yes. This road that I was on is wider that the road in front of me as it has a bridge. It is a third wider than the road in front of me.
[6] Berikut adalah laporan polis bertarikh 24 Mac 2008 yang dibuat oleh defendan: At 1.20 pm, 24 March 2008 I was driving my car Toyota Avanza registration BJA 7954 on Jalan 19/22. I put my indicator to turn right into Jalan 19/21. When I was going to turn, I heard a motorbike horn from behind. I braked. The motorbike over took my car on the right, knocking the right wing mirror. The motorbike flew in front and hit a railing. The motorcyclist fell off the bike. His helmet came off and he hit a stone pillar. The right wing mirror of my car is destroyed. The frame is still attached to the car. There are slight dents at the bottom of the car. The right side of the bumper is slightly damaged. The right wheel hub cap came off.
Keputusan Dan Alasan Mahkamah
[7] Di dalam kes di mana ada percanggahan material versi yang diberikan oleh kedua-kedua pihak, mahkamah haruslah melihat kepada versi mana yang lebih
