JUDGMENT

Choor Singh:

This appeal arises from a claim for damages for personal injuries sustained by the respondent and said to have been caused by the negligence of the appellant in the driving of a motor vehicle along New Changi Road, Singapore on 23 April 1970. The trial of the action resulted in judgment being given for the respondent on 23 September 1971 in the sum of $76,624 and costs. The appellant now appeals against the said judgment. The appeal is a limited one and is only against the trial Judge's finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent.

The facts according to the respondent's version which was accepted by the learned Chief Justice who tried this action are these. The respondent, a young man not yet 21 at the date of the accident, was riding a motor scooter along New Changi Road towards the city. He was following a Morris Minor van driven by the appellant. Just before the accident the respondent was travelling at 30 miles per hour and was about 30 feet behind the appellant's van when the appellant suddenly pulled up. The respondent applied his brakes and took evasive action by swerving to the right but without success. His scooter collided into the rear offside corner of the van. He did not fall off at the point of impact but went forward another ten feet before he fell from the scooter. His scooter finished up 58 feet from the point of impact. The respondent explained that this was due to the fact that he did not attempt to bring his scooter to a dead stop. He did not do that because he wanted to take evasive action and also because a dead stop might overturn his scooter.

The reason given by the appellant for pulling up was that he saw a tortoise on the road, about a foot from the grass verge. After passing the tortoise he slowed down, gave a hand signal that he was slowing down and came to a gradual stop about two or three feet from the left edge of the road. His intention was to get the tortoise off the road. He denied that he pulled up suddenly.

At the conclusion of the trial the learned Chief Justice delivered an oral judgment and made the following finding:

I have no doubt whatsoever after hearing and seeing the witnesses before me whose evidence I accept based on credibility and demeanour. I must do not accept the defendant's evidence at all. The probabilities of the case clearly also indicate that the plaintiff's evidence as to how the accident happened is more probable but I base my judgment on the fact that I accept the plaintiff's evidence and I disbelieve the defendant. So, clearly the accident happened because I find the defendant applied his brakes suddenly, gave no indication whatsoever that he was going to do this, as it turned out, not only a stupid act but a negligent act with serious consequences for the plaintiff, all because of a tortoise which he found crawling along the road in front of him.

There is no point in my repeating all the evidence. Finding as I do there can be no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff merely because he was travelling at a speed of 30 miles an hour following the defendant who was travelling at the same speed and staying at a distance of 30 feet behind the defendant on this particular stretch of the road at this particular time of the day and with the traffic as it was at the time of the collision ...

Before us, there is no complaint regarding the finding of negligence on the part of the appellant. The complaint is that on the respondent's own version of the accident, which was accepted by the learned Chief Justice, there was evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent. The submission is that the respondent was negligent in that he failed to carry out his duty as the driver of a motor vehicle following another motor vehicle and a number of authorities were cited in support of this submission.

Observations on the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle which is following another motor vehi