Norhanum Hassan M:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1] Introduction

This case pertains to a road accident involving a motorcycle (BLC 3038) ridden by the Plaintiff and a car (JUQ 811) driven by the Defendant. The accident took place on 18th August 2023 at Jalan Pahang. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant made an abrupt left turn without signalling, resulting in a collision. Conversely, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff attempted to overtake from the left, thereby violating Rule 5 of the Road Traffic Rules 1959.

According to the Plaintiff, he was traveling in the left lane when the Defendant, driving in the same direction, suddenly turned left without checking for oncoming traffic. As a result, the Defendant’s vehicle collided with the Plaintiff’s motorcycle, throwing him off and causing injuries. The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendant’s failure to signal and ensure a safe turn was the primary cause of the accident.

On the other hand, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff was riding at an excessive speed and attempted to overtake from the left, contributing to the collision. The Defendant asserts that he was executing a lawful turn when the Plaintiff, in negligence, tried to manoeuvre past him, leading to the accident.

The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for:

a)General damages;

b)Interest on general damages at a rate of 5% per annum from the date of the filing of the writ until full settlement;

c)Special damages;

d)Interest on special damages at a rate of 2.5% until the date of judgment and thereafter at a rate of 5% until full settlement;

e)Costs to be assessed based on the terms as ordered by this Honourable Court;

f)Any other relief or order deemed appropriate and just by this Honourable Court.

The Investigating Officer, Sergeant Muhammad Hafiz bin Arifin, classified this case as “RTM” (Refer to Magistrate), indicating that no criminal charges were pursued against either party. Consequently, the Court must consider the following key issues:

(a)Liability – Which party is responsible for the accident?

(b)Credibility of Witnesses – Is the testimony of the Investigating Officer (SP1) admissible as valid evidence?

(c)Quantum of Damages – The amount of compensation to be awarded.

[2] Court Documents Referred

A.A - Ikatan Pliding

B.B - Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif

C.C - Ikatan Dokumen Yang Dipersetujui [I]

D.D - Ikatan Dokumen Yang Tidak Dipersetujui Bahagian [III] E - Ikatan Dokumen Defendan

E.F - Ikatan Dokumen Plaintif Tambahan

[3] Witnesses Called

The following witnesses were called in this case:

Plaintiff’s Witnesses:

a)Sergeant Muhammad Hafiz bin Arifin (SP1)

b)James A/L Divit (SP2)

Defendant’s Witnesses: The Defendant did not call any independent witnesses but relied on documentary evidence such as the police report and photographic evidence.

[4] Analysis and Findings of the Court

[4.1] Liability

Under Malaysian law, every road user owes a duty of care to others to drive safely and avoid causing harm. The principle of negligence is established when a party fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury. In accident matters, the Plaintiff must establish negligence on the part of the Defendant. This principle was clearly set out in the High Court case of Che Pah Itam v. Chang Bek Lee where the Court held:

“It is trite law that the onus of proving negligence lies on the plaintiff.” Similarly, in Wong Thin Yit v. Mohamed Ali

“In a negligence action, the onus of proof rests wholly on the plaintiff, whether or not the defendant gives evidence. The plaintiff cannot succeed without proof of the defendant’s negligence.”

In determining liability for this accident, the Court must assess the duty of care owed by both parties, the sequence of events leading to the collision, and whether either party failed to observe traffic regulations. Both parties have provided conflicting versions of events, supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, including police reports, photographs, and witness statements. The Plaintiff maintains that the Def