This is a claim for $ 2,780 as special damage and $ 50,000 as general damage. The defence admits liability but disputes the quantum of damages.

The following facts are not disputed. On the evening of October 8, 1958 the plaintiff stopped his car at the Tanah Puteh ferry Kuantan and was waiting to cross the ferry. He got out of his car and went to the front of the car. While he was there defendants lorry driven by the second defendant came up from behind and drove into the rear of plaintiffs car. There was a taxi in front of plaintiffs car. The plaintiff was pinned between his car and the taxi and sustained a fracture of the right leg.

In dealing with this case, I would quote a passage from Lord Goddards judgment in British Transport Commission v Gourley [1956] AC 185 at p 206 which I think is relevant in this case. The passage reads: "In an action for personal injuries the damages are always divided into two main parts. First, there is what is referred to as special damage, which has to be specially pleaded and proved. This consists of out-of-pocket expenses and is generally capable of substantially exact calculation. Secondly, there is general damage which the law implies and is not specially pleaded. This includes compensation for pain and suffering and the like, and, if the injuries suffered are such as to lead to continuing or permanent disability, compensation for loss of earning power in the future."

I shall now deal with the special damage. Firstly, the plaintiff claims$ 1,260 as loss of salary for 3 months at $ 420 a month. Now the only evidence that has been adduced to support this claim is that of the plaintiff. He stated he was the manager of Aminah and Mohamed Sheik Estate. I think he should have produced evidence to support his claim in this respect. He should have called his employer and/or produced some documents to substantiate his claim. I do not think his bare word is sufficient. I therefore hold plaintiff has not proved his claim in respect of this item.

The second item is for $ 900 for the supply of special and nourishing food for 3 months at $ 10 a day. According to the plaintiff he had soup, rice, meat and vegetables for his meals which were brought to the hospital. For soup he had 2 bottles of Brands essence of chicken a day. He stated he did not have the hospital food because it was not good enough and not sufficient enough. Plaintiff called the manager of Yong Soon & Co. to say that the shop was one of the biggest provision shops in Kuantan and that plaintiffs wife used to buy essence of chicken from the shop once in two or three days. The wife also bought a tin of biscuits once a week. Unfortunately this manager could not produce any documentary evidence to support the sale. It seems to me that the manager must have a marvellous memory to remember small purchases which took place in 1958 considering that the shop is one of the biggest provision shops in Kuantan. The medical officer who gave evidence stated that the plaintiff was admitted as a first-class patient. It seems strange to me that a person of plaintiffs social standing would find the food served to first-class patients in the hospital as not good enough for him. The medical officer also stated that it was really not necessary for plaintiff to consume 2 bottles of essence of chicken daily while he was in hospital. There is no medical evidence to show that plaintiff had to have "special and nourishing food for 3 months". Plaintiff was admitted on 8.10.58 and discharged on 4.12.58. Four days later he was again admitted into hospital and stayed for about a week. He again stayed in the hospital for another week. He was again admitted to hospital on 19.2.59 and discharged on 26.2.59. He was then treated as an out-patient. According to the medical officer plaintiff was readmitted so many times because he had to have the plaster changed. All in all it would appear that the plaintiff was an in-patient for about 78 days