- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Goh Beng Seng v Dol Bin Dolah [1970] 2 MLJ 95b
Case Overview
Case Overview
- Court: OCJ Malacca
- Judge: Sharma J
- Date: 26 June 1969
- Nature of the case: Road accident claim involving negligence and damages for personal injuries.
- Negligence: Determining the degree of negligence of both plaintiff and defendant in a road accident.
- Damages:
- Assessment of damages for personal injuries.
- Refusal of a second operation and its impact on damages.
- Lump sum vs. itemized awards for general damages.
- Evidence: Admissibility of statements made to the police under the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Ordinance.
- Road Traffic: Duty of care of drivers on public roads.
- Accident: 1.30 a.m., April 19, 1966, at 13½ milestone Machap Baru/Durian Tunggal Road.
- Parties: Plaintiff (car driver) and Defendant (lorry driver).
- Conditions: Bend in the road, no dividing white line.
- Damage: Slight, on the offside of both vehicles.
- Plaintiff's actions: Driving with right arm resting on the door window, elbow sticking out.
- Medical: Plaintiff refused a second operation.
- Speeding: Both plaintiff and defendant were driving faster than expected for a sharp bend.
- Plaintiff's Negligence: Plaintiff's injuries were directly attributable to his own negligence (arm placement).
- Refusal of Operation: Plaintiff was not acting unreasonably in refusing a second operation.
- Lump Sum Damages: A lump sum award is more desirable for general damages to avoid inflation.
- General Damages Scope: General damages are compensatory, not restitutionary, and include loss of earnings, injury to health, pain, suffering, and inability to return to normal occupation.
- Inadmissible Evidence: The court has a duty to disallow inadmissible evidence, even without objection.
- Statements to Police: Use of statements to the police is limited by Section 124 of the Criminal Procedure Code and cannot be circumvented by claiming relevance under the Evidence Ordinance.
- Such statement cannot be used as evidence for any other purpose.
- Roads are not territorially or geometrically divided.
- The center line is a guide and reminder only.
- Drivers have a duty to ensure safety for themselves and others.
- An accident may occur even on 'one's own side of the road', imposing liability.
- Watson v Powles [1967] 3 WLR 1364
- Ward v James [1966] 1 QB 273
- Rowley v London & North Western Railway Co (1873) LR 8 Exch 221
- Wong Kong v Yee Hup Transport Co & Ors [1966] 2 MLJ 234
- British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Rail Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673
- Jones v Watney Comb Reid & Co Ltd (1912) 28 TLR 399
- Tutton v Majestic Owners [1909] 2 KB 54
- Illustrates the importance of driver responsibility and awareness on public roads.
- Highlights the limitations on admissibility of police statements in civil proceedings.
- Provides guidance on the assessment of damages in personal injury cases, particularly the debate between lump sum and itemized awards.
- Clarifies the duty to mitigate damages and the consideration of a plaintiff's refusal of medical treatment.
0 Comments