2026 MarsdenLR 1764

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
SOCAR MOBILITY MALAYSIA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
GOBALAN ARUMUGAM & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: JA-12B-25-04/2025]

A commercial vehicle provider owes a non-delegable duty of care to passengers regarding vehicle maintenance. Liability is established through the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and an adverse inference is appropriate when a party suppresses evidence by disposing of a vehicle before necessary inspections are conducted.

Headnote:(A) Civil Law (Amendment) Act 1956 - Section 8 - Evidence Act 1950 - Section 114(g) - Rules of Court 2012 - Order 8 rule 55 - Road traffic accident - Liability of vehicle owner - Direct duty of care to passengers - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Adversorial inference regarding evidence disposal - Compensation for loss of actual earnings and loss of earning capacity. (Paras 9, 38-46, 48-52).

(B) Appeal - Appellate intervention - An appellate court should not interfere with the findings of the trial court unless there is a clear error of law, wrong premise of fact, or failure of judicial reasoning. (Paras 18, 57).

(C) Tort of Negligence - Duty of care - A commercial provider of vehicles owes a direct, non-delegable duty of care to passengers to ensure vehicle roadworthiness, which cannot be extinguished by private contractual terms between the provider and the user. (Paras 48-51).

(D) Evidence - Interested witnesses - The testimony of related parties is not inadmissible; it must be assessed based on consistency and corroboration with objective physical evidence. (Paras 36).

Facts of the case:
An action was brought following a fatal road accident involving a rented vehicle, where passengers suffered injury or death allegedly due to brake failure. The primary issues involved apportioning liability between the driver and the owner, the applicability of evidentiary presumptions, and the calculation of quantum for loss of earnings and earning capacity for a permanently injured passenger.

Findings of Court:
The court found the vehicle owner primarily liable for failing to ensure the braking system was roadworthy. An adverse inference was drawn against the owner for disposing of the evidence prematurely. The court held that pre-trial loss of earnings is recoverable despite the accident occurring during a restricted travel period and that future loss of earning capacity must be calculated based on a realistic assessment of physical limitations and employment prospects.

Issues: The main issues were the cause of the accident, the validity of the adverse inference against the owner, the scope of the duty of care to third-party passengers, and the proper assessment of quantum for permanent injury involving potential illegal-work allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability is established where an owner fails to maintain a vehicle, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the owner. A failure to retain evidence during an investigation permits an adverse inference. Passengers are owed a direct duty of care, and quantum for loss of earning capacity is justified where there is a real risk of future labour market disadvantage due to permanent disability.

Result: Appellant's liability appeal dismissed; Cross-appeal allowed in part, increasing the quantum of damages for loss of actual earnings and loss of earning capacity. 90/10 apportionment of liability affirmed.