Back
SESSIONS COURT (IPOH)
SUNITA KAUR JESSY, J
Noor Syazwani binti Zabri & Anor – Appellant
Versus
Tan Huen Man & Ors – Respondent
Key Points: - (!) - (!) The burden of proof for negligence rests on the plaintiff; the court held liability wholly against the plaintiff for failure to exercise proper control. - (!) The judge concluded liability is totally against the plaintiff with no contribution from defendants; the claim was dismissed on liability grounds. - (!) - (!) General damages awarded for amputation injuries and the breakdown of special damages (prosthesis costs, etc.) are detailed with specific figures and justification. - (!) - (!) Specific awards: RM70,000 for below-elbow amputation; RM80,000 for above-knee amputation. - (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) Prosthesis-related assessments and expert opinions (DW5, DW6, DW4) and their impact on the award. - (!) - (!) , (!) - (!) Dismissal of certain special damages (nursing care, loss of prospects of marriage, earning capacity) for lack of proof. - (!) - (!) General legal principles on compensation and measurement of damages in tort. - (!) - (!) Foundational statements on burden of proof and the role of evidence in establishing negligence.
GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT
This accident occurred on the 15/1/15 at about 7.45 am when the plaintiff’s whilst riding her motorcycle bearing registration number AHB 6908 collided into the first defendant’s car AGV 5100 causing her to fall onto the path of the third defendant’s lorry ABT 6212. She suffered severe injuries resulting in amputation of her arm and leg.
Liability was decided wholly against the plaintiff and this claim was dismissed with costs hence this appeal by the plaintiff on the issue of liability and quantum.
The plaintiff’s version:
The plaintiff’s version was that the first defendant’s car grazed into her motorcycle and this caused her to fall onto the path of the third defendants’ lorry.
The first defendant’s version:
The first defendant’s version was the plaintiff whilst riding her motorcycle at the left lane had shifted to the right lane and collided into the left rear of his car and fell under the third defendant’s lorry. Therefore liability rests solely on the plaintiff.
The second and third defendant’s version:
The plaintiff whilst riding her motorcycle grazed into the first defendants’ car which caused her to fall under his lorry. Their version was that whilst driving his
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
