Back
2011 MarsdenLR 1692
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
INTAN NIRWANA SDN BHD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SRIMAHENDRAN LINGAM MANIAM & ANOR; NAYANASEGAR HARUSKRUSHNA (THIRD P.... – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No:12B-117-2010]
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's findings of fact unless there is a clear misapprehension of facts or law. Liability can be apportioned even when a party is deemed negligent in separate proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Law Act 1956 - Sections 28A and Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 - Appeal on quantum and liability following a vehicular accident - The Sessions Court apportioned liability 90% against the defendant driver and 10% against the third party driver, yet failed to provide grounds for this decision. Evidence from the third party was accepted; however, liability pleaded was admitted due to a judgment in default. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Negligence - The evidence of the third-party driver could be relied upon despite admission of negligence in third-party proceedings, as third-party proceedings do not affect plaintiffs' claims. (Paras 3, 4)
(C) Appeals - The appellate court's role is limited to assessing whether a clear error in fact or law was made by the trial court; findings of fact by the trial court are generally to be upheld unless exceptional circumstances arise. (Paras 5, 12)
(D) Damages - Appeals on quantum for personal injuries were dismissed. The assessment for loss of earning capacity was reasonable based on P's age and occupation, while general damages and special damages were also upheld as the appellants failed to show manifest excessiveness warranting interference. (Paras 14, 26) (E)
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. liability assessment principles (Para 1) |
[1] This appeal on both quantum and liability arises out of a running down claim in the Sessions Court. The accident was between a motor taxi owned by the 1st defendant/1st appellant ('D1') and driven by the 2nd defendant/2nd appellant ('D2') and a motor-car driven by the 3rd party/respondent ('TP') in which the plaintiffs/respondents ('P') were passengers. After a full trial, the learned Sessions Court judge ('SCJ') apportioned liability at 90% against D2 and 10% against TP. However, the SCJ did not provide any grounds of judgment to explain his finding.
