Negligence in traffic incidents must be established with clear evidence; cognitive impairments require rigorous evaluation methods for claims.

[1] The Plaintiff is seeking general damages for the injuries and special damages for the losses suffered by him as a result of the collision between the motorcycle that he was riding and the car driven by the Defendant. The incident is said to have occured on 28 June 2015 at around 4.45 in the evening at the junction leading to Taman Desa Kepas Indah, Besut.

[2] On the issue of liability, the primary question that needed to be answered is whether the evidence adduced during trial had shown that the Defendant had driven negligently, and had thus caused the said collision. Sargeant Rosli Bin Mahmood (SP5) was the police officer who conducted the investigation into the collision. He had visited the scene and had sketched a plan (exhibit P15) showing the relevant collision marks he found thereat. By referrring to the sketch plan, the evidence described the Defendant as having driven from the direction of Batu Tumbuh heading downwards before turning into the junction leading to Taman Desa Kepas Indah on his right hand side (or the left of the sketch plan). The Plaintiff on the other hand was riding from the opposite direction ie on an upward trajectory as per the sketch plan. The Defendant nevertheless admitted that he did not notice the presence of the Plaintiff's motorcycle before he made the turn to his right and neither did he notice it while he was making that turn. In fact, the Defendant only realised the presence of the motorcycle after the said motorcycle had collided into his car. This piece of evidence alone is sufficient to show that the Defendant had driven negligently, having failed to keep a proper lookout for oncoming traffic before venturing across the opposite lane.

[3] The second question that needed to be resolved is whether there was any contributary negligence on the Plaintiff's part that resulted in the said collision. The Plaintiff himself conceded that he could not recall how the collision occured. Be that as it may, SP5 had found a brake mark measuring 26 feet at the scene of the collision which he believed was left by the Plaintiff's motorcycle. On the exhibit P15 sketch plan, SP5 had marked the brake mark as beginning at point 'H1' and ending at point 'H2'. The said sketch plan indicates that the brake mark slanted towards the left hand side of the road, and ended close to the point of collision. The presence of the brake mark suggests that the Plaintiff had applied the brakes on his motorcycle and had steered diagonally to the left in order to avoid colliding with a car that was coming from his right. I am of the view that the Plaintiff had done all that were reasonable in the circumstances in attempting to avoid the collision, and as such I rule that the Plaintiff had not negligently contributed to the said collision. Based on what I have stated earlier, I further rule that the liability for the collision was entirely on the Defendant.

[4] After the collision, the Plaintiff was brought to Hospital Besut for treatment, before being referred to Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM) for further treatment. The medical reports issued by both Hospital Besut and HUSM show that the Plaintiff had suffered the following injuries:

1. Severe traumatic brain injury (GCS 7/15) with loss of consciousness and left temporo-parietal extradural haemorrhage. Emergency left craniotomy dan