Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd. Sheriff J:

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant arises out of a motor accident involving the plaintiff's motorbus SZ 2895 and the defendant's insured motorcar NN 3020.

On 24 October 1982 at about 5.00 p.m. whilst the plaintiff's servant was driving the motorbus SZ 2895 1 along the Johor Bahru/Air Hitam Road (at about 34 / miles to Johor Bahru) heading towards the direction 2 of Johor Bahru the deceased defendant's insured driver, Tan Sek Kim, driving motorcar NN 3020 and coming from the opposite direction caused the said motorcar to collide with the plaintiff's motorbus and thereby causing damage to the said motorbus.

Before the start of the hearing parties had agreed on the following items of special damages:

(i) Cost of Repairs (a) S$43,218.40 (b) S$14,549.30

S$57,767.70 (ii) Towing Charges (a) RM 530.00 (b) S$ 150.00

(iii)Cost of Adjuster's Report (a) RM 710.00 (b) S$ 228.00

Total agreed special damages: S$58,145.70 & RM 1,240.00

The issues before the Court are:

(a) Liability (b) Loss of use of motorbus SZ 2895 @ S$800 per day for 48 days. (c) the relevant date for determining the exchange rate. Liability

The only evidence adduced in this respect was that of PW2, Mr. Lee Chong Yile, the Co-driver of motorbus SZ 2895 at the material time. The driver himself had died about one year ago.

In his evidence PW2 stated that on that fateful day he was seated in front of the motorbus beside the driver. Whilst reaching Air Bemban, he saw a car NN 3020 coming from the opposite direction and encroaching onto their side of the road. On seeing this, the driver of the motorbus swerved to the left but failed to avoid the collision. The motorcar NN 3020 had earlier overtaken another vehicle in front of it before encroaching onto the other side of the road. After the collision the motorbus then knocked into a stone on the left side of the road and came to a stop.

The sketch plan and the key (AB 4, 5) shows the brake marks of the motorbus commencing from the grass verge by the roadside. The brake marks also start close to K1, the stone which the bus had hit after the collision. It is abundantly clear from the sketch plan that the motorbus had gone out of control after hitting the stone. This explains why the brake marks are so apparent from the stone and none on the road proper. This also supports the evidence of PW2 that the bus driver had swerved to the left when he saw the encroaching car and knocked into the stone after the car had collided into the bus. The photograph (AB 8) also shows the damage to the bus at the body near the right tyre. The frontal damage to the bus could have occurred on collision with the stone. I have no doubt that the motorcar had collided into the motorbus at such a great speed as otherwise the damage to the motorbus would not have been so severe.

PW2's evidence was not at all challenged by the defendant's Counsel. Looking at the sketch plan and the key it could be ascertained that the plaintiff's half 1 of the road (B to C) measures 11 feet 9 / inches wide. 2 F1, the rear right tyre of the defendant's car is 7 feet from the left edge of the plaintiff's road B. This goes to prove that the defendant's car had encroached 1 about 4 feet 9 / inches into the plaintiffs'

2

road after the collision. It is possible to suggest that the motorcar could have encroached further in before the collision as the bus had veered left into the grass verge in order to avoid the collision. I am certain that the driver of the motorbus had taken every reasonable step as a prudent driver to avoid the collision. None of the 36 passengers in the bus had suffered any injury and this speaks well of the driver's skill and prudence in driving.

Having had the advantage and benefit of hearing the unrefuted evidence of PW2 which is further supported by the sketch plan, I have no hesitation in holding that the defendant is 100% liable for the accident. As to the authorities cited in support of t