Chang Min Tat FJ:

The accident between the motor-cyclist plaintiff and the defendant motorist occurred when the motor-cyclist cut across the path of the following motorist in turning to a side road on the right. It took place almost on the crown of the road.

The question as always is liability for the accident.

The motor-cyclist said he was travelling on his left side of the road. When about 30 yds from the junction, he gave a right-hand signal. By this signal, he intended to indicate his intention to turn right. At this time he was aware of a car behind him. He had turned round to look and he estimated it to be some 90 yards behind him. Then after proceeding some 5-10 yards or so, he commenced to turn.

His evidence was to a certain extent corroborated by two persons who were at the road side waiting for a bus. They were on the same side and were waiting for a bus coming from the direction of the motor-cycle. Because of this, they said, they were looking in his direction. They therefore saw the way events developed leading to the accident. There were some minor discrepancies in the assessments of distances. These were to be expected. But there was one discrepancy of some importance. Jamaruddin PW3 largely agreed with the plaintiff. Letchuman, PW2, the other of the two bystanders, however, did not agree that the motor-cyclist moved from the left side before the junction was reached. The witness said the motor-cyclist turned from the left side of the road at a point directly opposite the side road. The defendant charged the plaintiff with suddenly turning across his path. He would therefore appear to have been supported by Letchuman.

The question whether the motor-cyclist suddenly turned across the motorist's path is, in my view, crucial to the question of liability for the accident. If as the motor-cyclist said he had turned gradually to the middle portion of the road, in order to turn into the side road leading to Roswell Estae, long before the motor-car had come up to him, he would have left ample room for the car to pass him on his left. There would be no necessity for the motorist to turn to the right and run down the motor-cyclist either from behind or from the side. On the other hand, if the motor-cyclist had suddenly turned across the motorist's path, he would have compelled the motorist to take evasive action by swerving to his right and if in certain circumstances, the action he took was not sufficient to avoid the accident, it would not be his fault.

But before this question could be answered, I have to consider the credibility of the motorist as a witness. I appreciate of course that in a clear sense, both he and the plaintiff are interested witnesses. In this case I was therefore more than a little surprised that in his examination-in-chief, he claimed he had no time to apply his brakes. He meant he did not apply his brakes at any time. I was surprised because the indications on the sketch were clearly that he had. The motorist's admission of course was such as not to invite crossexamination, but in fairness to him, as I considered it, since his Counsel failed to show him the sketch, I did so, but he still maintained he did not. As a party to the action, he was therefore either a witness who was unconcerned about the outcome of the case or one who was not prepared to say anything that he could not really or truly remember. On my view of him, I prefer to regard him in the latter category.

The answer to the question which I have to decide lies, I think, in the "uncontrovertible evidence" of the damages to the vehicles and the marks on the road. The motor car sustained damages to the near side front bumper, lamp and mudguard. The motor-cycle was damaged on its offside front, around the handle-bar. There were no damages whatsoever to the rear. The collision was therefore between the near side of the car and the offside of the motor-cycle at the area of the handle-bar. On the road itself, there were tyre m