Syed Agil Barakbah FJ:

This appeal arose from the decision of the High Court at Ipoh which gave judgment for the plaintiff/respondent and awarded the sum of RM2,017,440 in his favour in general and special damages due to the injuries suffered by him and caused by the negligent driving of the defendant/appellant of a motor van AG. 7995 which grazed against the respondent's left arm while he was walking along Hugh Low Street, Ipoh at about 7.30 p.m. on 21 March 1967. Prior to the accident the respondent parked his car AG. 613 on the left side of Hugh Low Street, came out and locked the front offside door. After that he walked to the rear of the car with the intention of checking the lock of the boot. As he was walking he saw the van coming from the opposite direction. The next moment he was knocked by the van and fell unconscious. As a result of the accident he suffered injuries as described in detail in the judgment of the learned Judge. The respondent claimed that as a result of the injuries he was unable to work for two months and for the duration of twenty weeks after that he suffered partial disability. His more serious claim is that his left hand became weak and unsteady after the accident and in spite of regular exercises and physiotherapy treatment the hand still remained weak coupled with tremors. As a result he was unable to carry out operations in plastic surgery for which he claimed to be specially trained.

The appellant in his defence denied that he was in any way negligent in having caused the accident and in the alternative averred that it was contributed to by the negligence of the respondent. He also denied that the respondent had suffered any loss as a result of the accident and the injuries suffered thereby. He alleged that while his van was about to pass the respondent immediately prior to the accident, the respondent raised his elbow up at the same time bending his left hand causing the elbow to jut outward and because of that the van grazed against the respondent's hand. The trial Judge having heard the evidence on both sides concluded that the appellant was solely to blame for having caused the accident and the injuries to the respondent and awarded damages as stated earlier.

There are 14 grounds of appeal as set out in the memorandum of appeal. We propose to deal with these grounds according to their relevant subject-matters.

The first three grounds are whether the trial Judge erred in law and in fact that the appellant was wholly to blame for the accident and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the respondent.

According to the undisputed facts and confirmed by the sketch plan, the relevant left half of the road (Hugh Low Street) as one faces Anderson Road leads to the junction where there is a traffic light. The width of that part of the road (A-B) is 25 feet 9 inches. Situated to its left is a parking bay (A-H) which is 7 feet 4 inches wide and 19 feet 6 inches long (H-I). On its right run two lanes demarcated by white lines. Along the centre of the road proper is a concrete cement divider. Prior to the accident the appellant was driving the van along the first lane on the left and the respondent was walking from the opposite direction after parking his motor car (K in plan) inside the parking bay (I-H). The width of the car is given as 5 feet 5 inches. The stationary position of the van as shown in the sketch plan (C, D, E & F) is that its nearside front at D is 9 feet 8 inches away from the left edge of the road at A, indicating that it is 2 feet 4 inches away from the side of the parking bay at H. The van had stopped at a slight angle towards the right since its nearside rear wheel at C is 8 feet 6 inches away from the left edge of the road at A. It is closer to A by 1 foot 4 inches.

It was submitted that the respondent's car was probably parked very close to the left hand side of the bay basing on the repondent's admission in cross-examination of having cultivated the h