Back
2025 MarsdenLR 674
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOHD IQHWAN NULHAKIM RAHIM – Appellant
Versus
LIEW YOKE KIEN & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: WA-11BNCVC-37-06/2024]
A driver changing lanes must ensure safety to avoid negligence; minor inconsistencies in testimony do not invalidate a claim if the core facts remain consistent.
Headnote:(A) Road Transport Act 1987 - Negligence - Plaintiff's motorcycle collided with motorcar driven by defendant during a lane change - Plaintiff's claim for damages dismissed by Magistrate due to alleged inconsistencies in evidence - Appeal partially allowed, finding defendant liable. (Paras 1, 2, 35)
(B) Liability - A driver changing lanes must ensure it is safe to do so without endangering others - Defendant breached this duty causing the collision. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff was riding his motorcycle when the defendant changed lanes suddenly, leading to a collision that resulted in multiple injuries. (Paras 4-6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was not at fault and established the defendant's negligence on the balance of probabilities, affirming the award for damages except for liability. (Paras 34, 35)
Issues: The appeal predominantly concerned the issue of liability, specifically whether the inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony were fatal to his claim. (Paras 10, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held the inconsistencies presented did not undermine the plaintiff's case, and minor discrepancies do not negate credibility; the defendant's lane change was found negligent. (Paras 12, 31)
Result: Appeal allowed in part; defendants held 100% liable for damages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and trial court decision (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the accident and plaintiffs injuries (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. evaluation of inconsistencies in testimonies (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. assessment of physical evidence in relation to testimony (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. standard of proof and findings of negligence (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. importance of police officer's testimony in negligence cases (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. credibility assessment of the 1st defendant (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. duty of care during lane changing and findings on liability (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 9. final decision and orders of the court (Para 34 , 35) |
Introduction
[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial court. This was an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Magistrate in a running-down action. The plaintiff claimed both general and special damages against the defendants for injuries and losses suffered when his motorcycle collided with the 1st defendant's motorcar along Jalan Kepong, Kuala Lumpur.
[2] At the conclusion of a full trial, the learned Magistrate dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The learned Magistrate found that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim against the defendants on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the learned Magistrate dismissed the plaintiff's claim and made no order as to costs. The plaintiff appealed against both the findings on liability and quantum.
[3] Upon careful perusal of the record of appeal and consideration of the submissions of the parties, I found merit in the plaintiffs appeal in respect of liability. However, I found no cogent reasons to intervene in the quantum of damages. Accordingly, I allowed the appeal in part.
Brief Background Of Facts
[4] On 6 October 2020 at about 09:00am, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle bearing registration number VM 7479 from his residence at Desa Tun Hussein Onn, Setiawangsa to his workplace at the OCBC Bank, Kepong. He travelled via Jalan Kepong. At the material time, the plaintiff was riding straight in the middle lane of what was described as a three-lane road.
[5] Simultaneously, the 1st defendant was driving a motorcar bearing registration number VCQ 7577 along the same stretch of road. According to the plaintiffs version of events, the 1st defendant's motorcar was initially on the right lane. Without warning, the 1st defendant suddenly changed lanes to the left and crossed the plaintiffs path. This sudden movement caused the plaintiffs motorcycle to collide with the rear left part of the 1st defendant's motorcar.
[6] As a consequence of the collision, the plaintiff fell onto the road and suffered multiple injuries. These included closed undisplaced fractures of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal bones of his right foot. He also sustained a deep puncture wound at his left elbow, multiple scars and muscle wasting. The plaintiff subsequently received treatment at Tuanku Mizan Armed Forces Hospital and was issued medical leave for fifteen days.
[7] Following the accident, both parties lodged police reports. The plaintiff lodged his police report on the same day vide Trafik Kuala Lumpur Report No 071999/20. The 1st defendant also made an initial police report on the day of the accident at 10:34 am vide Trafik Kuala Lumpur Report No 070337/20 and subsequently a supplementary report at 5:55pm on the same day vide Trafik Kuala Lumpur Report No 070478/20. In the supplementary report, the 1st defendant included additional details regarding the damage to the rear left light and reverse sensor of her motorcar.
[8] The plaintiff thereafter commenced legal proceedings against the defendants. At the trial, only two witnesses testified. The plaintiff gave evidence as SP1 and the 1st defendant testified as SD1. The police investigating officer was not called as a witness to testify. Further, no police investigation documents, such as sketch pla
