Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3286
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
PETER DION – Appellant
Versus
ABU MASUD MAHDI & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: KCH-12BNCvC-12-12/2023]
In personal injury cases, liability can be apportioned between parties based on negligence, and special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proven to be recoverable.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Accident - Apportionment of Liability - Quantum of Damages - The plaintiff, while on duty as a Watchman, was struck by a reversing lorry, resulting in injuries. The learned SCJ found both the plaintiff and the lorry driver equally liable at 50%. The court affirmed the decision to award damages totaling RM958,853.30, reduced by plaintiff's share of liability, leading to RM479,426.65 awarded. The appellant contended that the SCJ erred on liability apportionment and quantum of damages, which was dismissed as the evidence supported the findings of shared fault. (Paras 12, 34, 35, 59)
(B) Liability - Finding of fact - Appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with trial courts unless fundamentally misdirected. (Paras 31, 36)
(C) Quantum of Damages - Claim for special damages must be strictly proven; failure to do so can lead to disallowance. Claims for various treatments were dismissed for lack of proof. (Paras 52, 56, 58)
(D) Costs - The costs decision of the learned SCJ based on existing rules was upheld. (Para 28)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's dissatisfaction and grounds for appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background of the accident and injuries (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. findings and decisions of the learned scj (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. plaintiff's contentions and errors in liability finding (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. plaintiff's arguments on quantum of damages (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. arguments regarding costs and errors (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. defendants' counterarguments on liability (Para 29 , 30) |
| 8. law on appeals and reluctance to interfere (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. court's finding of fact on liability (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. assessment of negligence and liability findings (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. quantum of damages relating to general and special damages (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant, Peter anak Dion (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff") appeals to the High Court against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge (hereinafter referred to as "learned SCJ") delivered on the 27 November 2023 in respect of the apportionment of liability and the quantum of damages.
[2] Having heard and considered the appeal, this Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and maintained the finding and decision of the learned SCJ.
[3] The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with my decision, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[4] Below are the grounds for my decision.
Brief Background Facts
[5] Based on the plaintiff's pleadings, the brief facts of the case can be summarised as follows.
[6] The plaintiff was on the 4th day of January, 2020 at about 8.18am (hereinafter referred to as "the material day") present at the premises of Specasts Industries Sdn Bhd at Jalan Tenaga, Kuching where he was working as a Watchman.
[7] The 1st defendant was at all material times the driver, and the 2nd defendant was the registered owner of a motor lorry bearing registration No QKM 9003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said lorry").
[8] On the material day, the plaintiff was carrying out his regular duties around the vicinity of Specasts Industries Sdn Bhd when suddenly he was collided into by the said lorry, which was said to have been reversing without any warning or signal.
[9] According to the plaintiff, the said collision was solely caused or substantially contributed to by the negligence of the 1st defendant in the manner of his driving, management and control of the said lorry as the servant and/or agent and/or permitted driver of the 2nd defendant for whom the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable.
[10] As a result of the said accident, the plaintiff suffered injuries as listed in his medical report from Sarawak General Hospital (SGH) dated 30 June 2020 prepared by Dr Bong Chun Haw [pp 564-565 of ROA].
Findings Of The Learned SCJ
[11] The decision of the learned SCJ delivered on the 27 November 2023 is as follows:
[12] The learned SCJ finds that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, on the balance of probabilities, equally liable for causing the said accident and the 2nd defendant is vicariously liable to the negligent caused by the 1st defendant [refer to para [4] of the Grounds of Decision of the Sessions Court Judge at pp 9 and 10 of SROA].
[13] In respect of quantum, the learned SCJ awarded the plaintiff in the sum of RM590,000.00 for General Damages and RM106,383.30 for Special Damages and also RM262,470.00 for post-trial damages totalling RM958,853.30. Minus the 50% liability against the plaintiff, the total award is RM479,426.65 [refer to para [12] of the Grounds of Decision of the learned SCJ at p 19 of SROA].
Issues Based On Memorandum Of Appeal
[14] In his Supplementary Memorandum of Appeal, the plaintiff contends that the learned SCJ has erred in law and fact in respect of her findings on liability and award of quantum of damages.
Issue Of Liability
[15] On the issue of liability, the plaintiff contends that the learned SCJ
