Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3774
MAHKAMAH SESYEN (KUANTAN)
MAIMOONAH AID, J
Azman bin Adnan (Mendakwa sebagai wakil diri harta pusaka dan sebagai bapatanggungan yang sah kepada Muhammad Amirul bin Azman (Simati)) dan satu lagi lwn – Plaintiff
Versus
Othman bin Aripin dan satu lagi – Defendant
GUAMAN NO CA-A53KJ-21-01 TAHUN 2023
Mohd Hamdi bin Zainol (N M Tiong & Co) bagi pihak plaintif.
Mohd Apandi bin Mohd Yatim (Gan, Ho & Razlan Hadri) bagi pihak defendan.
The court emphasized that in determining liability for road traffic accidents, both the visibility conditions and the behaviors of the involved parties must be critically assessed to establish negligence.
Headnote:(A) Road Traffic Accident - Liability - The court discussed the principles guiding the determination of liability in motor vehicle accidents, emphasizing the importance of both the visibility of vehicles and the behavior of drivers in assessing negligence (Paras 10, 14, 54).
(B) Negligence - Standard of Care - The court ruled that drivers must maintain a reasonable distance and be vigilant to avoid accidents, especially in poorly lit conditions (Paras 25, 39).
(C) Quantum of Damages - The plaintiffs claimed RM540,000 for pain and suffering endured by the deceased before death, while the defendants argued for a significant reduction of 60% due to the time elapsed between the accident and death (Paras 64, 66).
Facts of the case:
The case arises from a road traffic accident on June 21, 2020, involving a motorcycle and an MPV, resulting in the death of the motorcycle rider. Defendants acknowledged the accident but claimed it was due to the deceased's negligence (Paras 1-5).
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, attributing 100% liability to the deceased (Paras 54, 55).
Issues: The key issues included determining liability amidst conflicting accounts of the accident and the impact of lighting conditions on driver visibility (Paras 10, 20).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff did not establish actionable negligence by the defendant, concluding the liability was entirely on the deceased for altering his trajectory recklessly without adequate visibility (Paras 52-55).
Result: Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.
Maimoonah Aid HMS:
ALASAN PENGHAKlMAN
(Bicara Penuh)
Pendahuluan
[1]Guaman ini adalah berbangkit daripada satu kemalangan jalanraya yang berlaku pada 21.6.2020 jam lebih kurang 12.30 malam di berhampiran simpang Taman Kampung Padang Damai di antara motorsikal no. CEE 9940 (“motorsikal tersebut”) dan motor MPV no. CDT 7169 (“MPV tersebut”).
[2]Pada ketika itu Muhammad Amirul bin Azman, yang telah meninggal dunia akibat kemalangan tersebut (“simati”) adalah penunggang motorsikal tersebut. Manakala defendan 1 adalah pemandu MPV tersebut.
[3]Mengikut penyataan tuntutan plaintif, kemalangan berlaku semasa simati sedang meneruskan perjalanan dan sampai berhampiran simpang Taman Kampung Padang Damai, secara tiba-tiba MPV tersebut yang berada di hadapan motorsikal yang ditunggang simati telah mengubah haluan dari kiri ke kanan jalan sehingga terus merempuh motorsikal tersebut yang sedang berada di laluan sebelah kanannya di jalan tersebut.
[4]Defendan-defendan dalam pembelaan mereka tidak menafikan kejadian kemalangan tersebut tetapi memplidkan bahawa kemalangan tersebut adalah disebabkan oleh kecuaian sepenuhnya dan/atau sertaan simati.
[5]Oleh itu, bagi tujuan keputusan ini, penglibatan kedua-dua kenderaan di atas bukanlah lagi menjadi pertikaian.
[6]Tidak ada saksi-saksi bebas lain yang melihat kejadian tersebut berlaku kecuali arwah isteri defendan 1 dan ibu mertuanya yang berada dalam MPV tersebut. Namun, arwah isteri defendan 1 dan ibu mertua tidak membuat laporan polis. Mereka juga tidak dipanggil memberi keterangan oleh pihak polis kerana mengikut pegawai penyiasat, kedua-dua mereka adalah ahli keluarga defendan 1.
Liabiliti
[7]Bagi tujuan perbicaraan penuh, saksi-saksi berikut telah dipanggil-
| (a) Rosli bin Husin (wakil majikan simati) | - SP1 |
| (b) Sarjan Hasrul Rizal bin Mohd Raduan (Pegawai Penyiasat) | - SP2 |
| (c) Azman bin Adnan (Plaintif 1) | - SP3 |
| (d) Othman bin Aripin (Defendan 1) | - SD1 |
[8]Ini adalah rajah kasar yang disediakan oleh pegawai penyiasat, SP2.
[9]Berdasarkan keterangan dan bukti-bukti yang dikemukakan, pihak-pihak telah berhujah seperti berikut-
[10]Persoalan yang perlu diputuskan oleh Mahkamah adalah, adakah MPV yang berada di hadapan telah mengubah haluan dari kiri ke kanan jalan sehingga merempuh simati yang berada di laluan sebelah kanannya ATAU adakah ini kes langgar belakang oleh motorsikal simati?
[11]Terdapat dua (2) versi yang bercanggah.
[12]Dan peguam-peguam cuba mewujudkan kemungkinan-kemungkinan berdasarkan keterangan saksi-saksi sehingga berbaur sedikit emosi terutama di pihak plaintif.
[13]Dalam menghadapi dua (2) versi kemalangan yang bercanggah ini, Mahkamah diberi panduan oleh prinsip-prinsip yang diputuskan dalam Mahkamah-Mahkamah yang lebih tinggi.
[14]Abdul Malik Ishak H (pada ketika itu) dalam kes Tabarani Mohd Arsad & Anor v Chan Tenn Yeu
There were two versions of the accident. One version came from the respondent plaintiff himself while the other version was that of the first appellant defendant. The trial court fell in error when it approached the case solely on the basis of deciding which story to be believed. When confronted with two conflicting versions, the duty of the trial court was to consider which version was inherently probable or improbable. The trial court should have been more meticulous and considered other probable versions provided they were within the scope and ambit of the pleadings and supportable by admissible evidence including the neutral ones. This approach provides a wide leverage for the trial court to manoeuvre bearing in mind, always, the testimony of the credible witnesses. Spenser Wilkinson J castigated the magistrate in Koay Teik Choo & Ors v. Reg ; , for approaching the case upon the basis of which of the two conflicting stories he should believe. His Lordship remarked at p. 53 of the report that:
One of the dangers of this approach is that it leaves entirely out of account the possibility (which in my opinion existed in a very high degree in the present case) that what has really bee
