Back
2011 MarsdenLR 547
SESSIONS COURT MIRI
MOHD ANUAR AURTHER ABDULLAH & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
MIRI BELAIT TRANSPORT CO BHD – Respondent
[Summons No: 53-51-2010 (MR)]
The court held the first defendant vicariously liable for negligence due to the driver's loss of control, resulting in a collision with the plaintiff's vehicle.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Liability - Encroachment onto plaintiff's lane - The first defendant's vicarious liability for the actions of his authorized driver, who negligently lost control of a bus, leading to a collision with the plaintiff's lorry. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 28, 29)
(B) Negligence - Duty of care - The first defendant breached the duty of care by failing to exercise reasonable care while driving in adverse conditions. (Paras 10, 18, 20)
(C) Contributory negligence - Defence of inevitable accident rejected as the first defendant failed to prove that external factors solely caused the accident. (Paras 9, 18)
Facts of the case:
On 9 December 2009, the plaintiff was driving a lorry when the bus, driven by the first defendant's authorized agent, collided with it after encroaching into the plaintiff's lane. The plaintiff sustained injuries and claimed injuries and damages of RM149,600.00 for general damages and RM811.00 for special damages due to 100% liability.
Findings of Court:
The court found the first and second defendants 100% liable for the incident and awarded damages accordingly.
Issues: The court addressed issues of liability, contributory negligence, and whether the defence of inevitable accident applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first defendant's actions constituted negligence, overriding any claims of inevitable accident since sufficient evidence indicated liability rested wholly with him.
Result: The plaintiff was awarded RM149,600.00 for general damages and RM811.00 for special damages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the incident and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. witness statements and production of documents. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. ruling on liability and damages. (Para 6) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument on liability. (Para 7) |
| 5. defendant's argument against liability. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. court's evaluation on facts and evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. consideration of road conditions and driver behavior. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. rejection of the defense of inevitable accident. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 9. summons and evidence credibility. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. final ruling on liability. (Para 27 , 29) |
| 11. plaintiff's lost earnings claim. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 12. court ruling on future earnings capacity. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 13. principles for assessing loss of earnings capacity. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 14. costs for future operations and treatments. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 15. court's discretion in awarding treatment costs. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 16. claims for damages and injuries assessed. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 17. assessment of pain and suffering compensation. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 18. court ruling on specific injuries. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 19. assessment of nursing care costs. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 20. final calculations and allowances for damages. (Para 66 , 67) |
| 21. final judgment and order. (Para 73 , 74) |
[1] This case involved running down case of a personal injury claim arising out of a motor-vehicle collision. Both Plaintiff and Defendants were represented by their own advocates. I will simplify chronology of this case and took into consideration Plaintiff's statement of claim.
[2] At all material times, the 1st Defendant is and was the authorized driver and/or agent and/or servant and/or person driving with the permission of the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration no QMC1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Bus"). 2nd Defendant is and was the registered owner of the said Bus.
[3] On 9 December 2009 at or about 2300 hours (11.00 pm), the Plaintiff was lawfully driving a motor vehicle bearing registration number QMH3115 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Lorry Cargo") from Beluru, Bakong, Miri, Sarawak towards Miri City at along Jalan Miri/Bintulu, when at KM10, Jalan Miri/Bintulu, the 1st Defendant who was driving the said Bus from Miri City towards Lambir and from the opposite direction of the said Lorry Cargo and/or the Plaintiff had so negligently droved swerved managed and controlled the said Bus out of sudden and without warning and or signal had lost controlled of the said Bus and violently skidded and encroached and/or cut across onto the said Lorry's lane or way or path and violently collided and/or knocked and/or rammed and/or hit the said Lorry Cargo. As a direct result of the said collision, the Plaintiff sustained injuries and damaged to the said Lorry Cargo.
[4] This case was fixed for trial on 8th and 9th of August, 2011. On the trial date, Plaintiff produced 3 witness as follows;-
1. En Mohd Anuar Aurther Abdullah - PW1 (the Plaintiff)
2. Sjn Ravikumar Marimuthu - PW2 (the investigating officer)
3. Dr Richard Chen Shyue Woon - PW3 (Orthopaedic Specialist)
On the other hand, the Defendant's witness are as follows:-
1. Mathew Mumin Myalu - DW2 (the 1st Defendant)
2. Kiang Emba (the Mechanic)
[5] Before the trial proceed, following bundle of documents has been marked as follows;-
Bundle of Pleadings - A
Statement of Agreed Facts - B
Bundle of Agreed Documents (Both Authenticity and Content)- C
Bundle of Agreed Documents (Authenticity Only) - D
Bundle of Disputed Documents- E
Supplementary Bundle of Documents- F
Defendant's Bundle of Documents - G
[6] On 22 August 2011, ruling was delivered. After evaluating all of the evidence and giving both parties liberty to file their submissions, on the balance of probabilities, Plaintiff is entitled to 100% claim. As 2nd Defendant is the registered owner of the said Bus QMC 1969 is vicariously liable for the said accident. In respec
