Winslow J:

This case involves a collision which occurred at about 7.30 p.m. on 7th March 1964 between a taxi driven by the defendant along Kallang Road in the direction of the city and a motor-cycle ridden by the plaintiff which, according to the plaintiff, was following the taxi at a distance of 10 feet.

The plaintiff claim damages as a result of injuries sustained by him, the most serious one of which was a compound fracture of the left tibi and fibula resulting in a half inch shortening of the left leg and some slight wasting in the girth of the left calf and left thigh. The fractures have since healed but there is a slight bony prominence over the antero-medial aspect of the leg.

General damages have been agreed at $5,000.

I have to decide whether the plaintiff's claim should succeed and to determine the quantum of special damage, the largest item of which relates to loss of earnings as a coffee stall proprietor for five months at $250 per month.

I assess the special damage at $680, being as to $80 cost of transport to and from the General Hospital and the cost of repairs to the motor-cycle. As to his loss of earnings I am not prepared to believe that he lost $250 per month for five months. I do not believe the witnesses who testified to the fact that an ex-trisha rider who acted as a relief for the plaintiff was paid $8 per day for his services. It is more likely that he was paid something in the region of at the most $4 per day which would still have left the plaintiff, who was in partnership with another, a profit of about $130 instead of $250 per month.

I now turn to a consideration of the evidence in this case. In his first report to the police the plaintiff claimed that the defendant "without giving any signal turned to the side intending to stop. So I rode close to the side and as I had no time I was unable to do anything".

In his statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that "the defendant so negligently drove motor taxi No. SH. 2678 along the said road and in the same direction as to cause the same to collide with the said motor cycle". The particulars of negligence set out in para. 2 thereof as are as follows:

(a) Failing to keep any or any proper look out;

(b)Driving at an excessive speed in the circumstances;

(c)Failing to have any or any sufficient regard for other users of the highway;

(d)Swerving suddenly to the left;

(e)Failing to give any or any sufficient warning of his intention to turn left;

(f) Failing to observe the presence of the plaintiff on the highway;

(g)Failing to stop, swerve, slow down or otherwise avoid the said collision.

In his evidence, however, the plaintiff said that as he was following the defendant's taxi at a distance of about 10 feet in the outer lane about 8 or 9 feet from the road divider the defendant swerved to the left on being hailed by a prospective fare, and on hearing a remonstrative hoot from a van in the inner lane on his near side, swerved to his right and stopped. On his own version he was travelling down and incline towards the end of Kallang bridge at a speed of 23/4 miles per hour behind the taxi which was travelling at 20 miles per hour according to the defendant.

The defendant, on the other hand, in his report to the police claimed that he was travelling at a speed of about 20 miles per hour when the plaintiff's motorcycle came from behind and "knocked my rear right lamp and a part of the rear bumper caused a damage to the said lamp and the said bumper bent slightly".

In his defence the defendant admits the collision but denies negligence. In his evidence the defendant said that he had to make an emergency stop because the car preceding him stopped in order to turn right at a break in the concrete divider opposite a lane to his right.

It will be seen from the above that it is only in Court that either the plaintiff or the defendant mentioned, for the first time, that the defendant's taxi made a sudden stop. Why neither of them mentioned th