Back
2011 MarsdenLR 876
MAHKAMAH SESYEN JOHOR BAHRU
KEH YONG SIANG & YANG LAIN LWN. OH CHI YIT & SATU LAGI; NG CHEE KIEN (PIHAK KETIGA)
[Saman No: 53-1009-2008]
The court maintained that a lump sum award for overlapping disabilities is appropriate, highlighting the need to consider a claimant's ability to work post-injury in assessing loss of earnings.
Headnote:(A) Tort Law - Quantum of damages - Assessment of personal injury damages involves considering the nature and severity of injuries sustained, overlap of disabilities, and application of precedent case law - The court agreed on a lump sum award for various items of pain and loss due to brain damage, citing Tan Cheong Poh & Anor v. Teoh Ah Keow, emphasizing principles of overlapping awards - Total award determined to be RM150,000.00 for the first plaintiff, with specific awards for items not overlapping. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 27)
(B) Loss of Earnings - The court addressed the claimant's ability to return to work post-injury and determined that full loss of earnings was not justified. It established that any allowance must consider the claimant's capacity to work, leading to an award for partial loss. (Paras 19-21)
(C) Nursing Care - The need for partial rather than full nursing care was established based on medical reports, resulting in an award for specified monthly care costs. (Paras 30-32)
(D) Interest Rates - The judgment addressed the interest rates applicable to general and special damages, establishing a 4% and 2% rate, respectively, based on prior rules before the 2011 amendment. (Paras 34)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. awards for personal injuries and loss (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. assessment of loss of enjoyment of life (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. employment and income considerations (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. daily living expenses assessment (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. arguments regarding loss of earnings (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. compensation for third plaintiff's injuries (Para 26 , 27) |
[1] Kes ini cuma melibatkan tuntutan oleh plaintif pertama dan plaintif ketiga dari segi kuantum.
Plaintif Pertama
Gantirugi Am (Kecederaan, Kesakitan Serta Kehilangan Kesenangan Hidup)
[2] Peguam plaintif mencadangkan sejumlah RM318,000.00 berdasarkan perkiraan berikut:
(a) Sebanyak RM100,000.00 bagi severe head injury with skull fracture;
(b) Sebanyak RM5,000.00 bagi loss of consciousness;
(c) Sebanyak RM162,000.00 bagi total blindness in the left eye and 50% blindness in the right eye;
(d) Sebanyak RM5,000.00 bagi multiple laceration wounds;
(e) Sebanyak RM10,000.00 bagi loss of marriage prospects;
(f) Sebanyak RM30,000.00 bagi facial disfigurement; dan
(g) Sebanyak RM6,000.00 bagi labile temperament and embarassement.
[3] Mahkamah memutuskan berdasarkan prinsip dalam kes Tan Cheong Poh & Anor v. Teoh Ah Keow, untuk memberikan satu award secara global bagi item (a), (b), (c), (e), (f) dan (g) memandangkan ianya mengalir akibat dari kecederaan di kepala. Dalam kes Tan Cheong Poh & Anor tersebut, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menyatakan di Held (1) bahawa: Where disabilities stem from one injury, the extent of overlap will be such that there would be a merger and hence, allowance for overlapping in computing the award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities is not good enough. In this case, all the disabilities suffered by the plaintiff stemmed from one injury, ie the brain damage, and thus, the judge was right in making a lump sum award instead of making separate assessment for physical and intellectual disabilities, and to allow for overlap.
[4] Mahkamah bersetuju dengan cadangan peguam defendan agar sejumlah RM150,000.00 diawardkan bagi perkara ini berdasarkan kepada kes-kes yang telah dirujuknya, iaitu kes Ismail Najib v. So Chai Ling & Anor [2010] 2 PIR 56 di ms 295, kes Abdullah Jusoh v. King Hock Wong Weng & Anor; [2007] 1 PIR 68 di ms 451, kes Ismail Wan Hassan & 2 Ors v. Look Fook Leong; [2010] 1 PIR 63 di ms 343, kes Norashikin Baharim & Anor v. Jamil Taib & Anor; [2010] 1 PIR 5 di ms 17, kes Nur Fatiha Salim v. Mohd Shah Jais & Anor [2010] 2 PIR 72 di ms 390, kes Wong Yin Kwan v. Hashima Hasbul & Anor [2007] 1 PIR 14 di ms 69, dan kes Isha Amat Ikram & Anor v. Mohd Sezatulakmar Senin & Anor; [2010] 1 PIR 2 di ms 3.
[5] Ingin dinyatakan di sini bahawa walaupun plaintif pertama mengalami kehilangan penglihatan peripheral 50% pada mata kanannya, visual acuity adalah baik sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam laporan perubatan oleh pakar mata, Datin Dr Teoh Su Lin.
[6] Ingin juga dinyatakan di sini bahawa bagi item (e), (f) dan (g), ketiga-tiga item ini adalah kerugian kesenangan hidup dan perkara ini diambilkira oleh mahkamah semasa mengawardkan sejumlah RM150,000.00 tersebut dan dengan itu tidak mewajarkan satu award tambahan diberikan lagi oleh mahkamah.
[7] Bagi item (d), sebanyak RM5,000.00 diawardkan sebagaimana dipersetujui.
Gantirugi Khas
[8] Item yang tidak dipertikaikan dan dibenarkan ialah:
(i) Kos perubatan yang dialami di Hospital Pulau Pinang sebanyak RM30.00;
(ii) Laporan perubatan dari Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Hospital Sultan Ismail dan Hospital Pulau Pinang sebanyak RM120.00;
(iii) Laporan pakar mata sebanyak RM645.00, dan
(iv) Carian JPJ, laporan polis, rajah kasar, dibenarkan di bawah kos.
[9] Bagi item yang lain yang diplid dalam pliding iaitu item (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (q) dan (t) tidak dibenarkan kerana tidak dibuktikan/tidak dituntut dalam hujah.
Kehilangan Pendapatan
Penganda
[10] Kedua-dua pihak bersetuju penganda ialah 16 tahun.
Multiplicand
[11] Kedua-dua pihak tidak mempertikaikan bahawa plaintif pertama ("SP7
