On 23 December 1997, Goh followed the same routine as set out above. When he met Ng at Bedok, she decided to go to the back of the Lorry to lie down in the loadbed. She said she wanted to sleep. At approximately, 1.30 am, Goh was driving the Lorry with Tan and Ng along West Coast Highway, at a location between the Haw Par Villa and the Clementi Road Junction. Goh was in the extreme left lane. He was travelling at about 50 to 60 kilometres an hour. He observed that there was another car ("Car Y") in the centre lane approximately 100 feet ahead. It was travelling in the same direction towards Jurong. From his rear view mirror, he observed the head lights of another car ("Car X"). It was approaching from the rear and was travelling in the centre lane. As Car X was overtaking Goh, without any warning or indication, it swerved into Goh's path to over take Car Y. Instinctively, Goh slammed on the brakes of the Lorry and swerved to the left to avoid colliding with Car X. In the process, the Lorry mounted the kerb and hit a lamp post number 133 before returning to the road and coming to rest.

Goh checked on Tan. Tan said he was injured at the leg and face. Goh checked with Ng. She was alert and appeared unhurt. She asked Goh what had happened. Goh briefly told her how the accident occurred. He then crossed the road to stop a taxi that was approaching in the opposite direction. The taxi radioed for an ambulance. After about 20 minutes, an ambulance and a police car arrived. Tan, Ng and Goh were conveyed to the National University Hospital. Goh was discharged at about 8.00 am on 24 December 1997 . Thereafter, he proceeded to the police post at Dakota Crescent, Kallang to make a report.

Ng was admitted to National University Hospital on 24 December 1997. There was no loss of consciousness, no nausea or vomiting. She complained of pain at the left rib. On examination, she was found to be conscious and alert and her vital signs were stable. X-rays done showed a fracture of the left tibia and fibula and fracture of the left ribs no. 5 and 7. She was treated in the ward conservatively with painkillers and oxygen therapy. She continued to stay in the ward and was recovering slowly. The fracture of the left tibia was put on plaster. On 5 January 1998, however, she suddenly collapsed and was found to have no respiration and no blood pressure was recorded. She died at 7.30 am that day. The cause of death was pulmonary embolism from deep vein thrombosis apparently because she was immobilised in bed for a prolonged period which allowed thrombosis to form in her lower leg. Dr Richard Lim, the Senior Lecturer & Consultant Surgeon in the Department of Surgery, was of the opinion that although the accident had contributed to that, it was not a direct cause of her death.

The administrator of the estate of Ng brought the present action for the benefit of the estate and the dependents of Ng. Special damages were particularised as follows;

(1) Funeral expenses (2) Costs for applying for lettersof administration (3)Medical expenses

$3,000 $1,500 $5,714

The plaintiff also claims damages for bereavement on behalf of the children of Ng.

Liability

The Court is likely to apply the res ipsa loquitur doctrine (the lorry mounting the curb suggests that Goh was negligent unless he could show otherwise). In the case of Muthan Sinnathambi v Puran Singh [1992] 2SLR 103 , the deceased was a pillion rider on a motor cycle ridden by the def endant on 31 January 1987. He died when the motor cycle went off the road and collided into a tree, Apart from the defendant, there were no other witness to the accident. The defendant gave evidence that a motor pickup suddenly came up to him on his left at a fast speed. It went past him ' just by my left knee', but did not touch him. To avoid colliding with the pickup, he swerved to his right and also applied both front and back brakes. The motor cycle went off onto the grass verge on the fight and collided into a tree. The pickup did not stop. The judge held that the motor cycle was at all times under the defendant's control and management. It would not in the ordinary course of things have left the road and collided into a tree without negligence on the part of the defendant. Therefore the maxim res ipsa loquitur applied and the court could draw an inference of negligence against the defendant from the mere fact that the accident occurred. The burden was on the defendant to rebut that inference. The account the defendant gave of the incident was not credible. As a result it could only be determined that for some unknown reason the defendant lost control of his motor cycle and went off the road and collided into the tree. He was wholly to blame for the accident.

In the case now under discussion, the Court is likely to find that Goh was negligent. The Court will then decide by the Court, the next question is: Did he cause Ng's death? The answer is probably "Yes". Ng was 70 years old. She died 12 days after the accident from a pulmonary embolism resulting from a thrombosis which formed in her lower leg as she was immobilised in bed for a prolonged period. The doctor had commented that the accident was not a direct cause of her death but had contributed to it. The Court is likely to decide that the death is the natural and probable result of the breach of duty. It is a well-established rule that if the consequences of a slight personal injury are aggravated by t he state of health or age of the person injured, the wrongdoer is non the less liable to the full extent, though he had no knowledge of that state of health and no reason to suspect it (the"egg-shell" skull rule).

Quantum

Ng is survived by her husband who was about 77 years old . He is senile and requires a wheelchair. She leaves behind five sons and four daughters, all between the ages of 29 to 50 years old. Her assets for the purposes of estate duty listed a potential claim for damages arising out of a traffic accident, declared at $50,000; apparently, she had no other assets. After 1 May 1987, the estate's right to claim for damages for lost earnings in the lost years was abolished. The tortfeasor has to pay to the dependent relatives an amount reflecting lost support derived from lost future earnings of the deceased, from the time of death to the end of the period which he would have provided such support. He will not be required to pay any amount to the esta te reflecting lost earnings of the deceased for the period after death. Owing to Ng's age, the age of Ng's children and the fact that she had no assets at the point her death, it is likely that very low or no award would be made for a claim for lost of support.

On a claim for loss of expectation of life, the standard award of around $6,500 is no longer available. Section 8A of the Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 1987 provides that in an action for damages for personal injuries, no damages shall be recoverable in respect of any loss of expectation of life caused to the injured person by the injuries but if the injured person's expectation of life has been reduced by the injuries, the court, in assessing damages for pain and suffering, shall take into account the suffering caused or likely to be caused by the awareness of the shortened life expectancy. Owing to the sudden onset of death, it may be argued that Ng had no awareness of a shortened life expectancy. Finally, section 4 of the Act has created a right for certain dependants to claim $10,000 as damages for bereavement.

In the light of the above, a reasonable quantum would be:

(1) Claim for general damages/bereavement (2) Claim for special damages (a) funeral expense (b) cost of applying for letters of administration (c) medical expenses TOTAL

10,000 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,214 $14,714

The Court may attribute 30% liability to Ng for sleeping at the rear of the Lorry and, therefore, failing to exercise proper care, the award would be reduced to $10,299.

Mediation and Settlement

The Courts encourage parties to settle their dispute amicably. In this regard, it is common for the negligent party to initiate a settlement by making (throught its lawyers):

(1) a without prejudice offer starting at $7,000 and not exceeding $10,000 to settle the claim and if a settlement is not reached within two weeks, serve on the plaintiff's solicitors an offer of $11,000 to settle the claim under Order 22A rule 9 of the Rules of the Subordinate Court.

If the plaintiff obtains judgment not more favourable than the terms of the offer (ie any judgment of less that $11,000), the defendant shall be entitled to costs on the indemnity basis from the date of the offer.

With regard to Tan's claim, a reasonable quantum may be is as follows:

General damages a) fracture of tibia and fibula resulting in shortening and other disabilities b) fracture of proximal phalanges of the 4th and 5th toe c) skin grafting with scars d) abrasion, laceration and scars e) osteoarthritis f) loss of earning capacity Special damages a) medical expenses b) cost of crutches c) loss of income at $1,500 per month for 10 months and still continuing d) ambulance fees e) two medical reports f) search fees and police reports g) transport to and from hospital at $25 per trip (10 trips) h) rental charges for market stall at $115 per month for 10 months and still continuing TOTAL

$17,000 $ 8,000 $ 3,500 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $39,000   $ 4,888 $ 300 $15,000 $250 $200 $75 $250 $1,150 $120,000(approx)

Tan would not be entitled to any loss of future earnings but will suffer some loss in the ability to earn (loss of earning capacity). Tan's medical report concluded that:

Tan had made satisfactory recovery. The tibial and fibular fractures are likely to have delayed union, in view of the severity of the injury. Osteoarthritis at the knee or ankle is likely although the chances are low. Limitation of joint movements is likely to improve with time but may not be totally full. Tan will be able to return to his occupation as a fishmonger although squatting and climbing stairs may pose problems.

Tan is likely to recover around $120,000.

 

Raffleslaw.com

raffleslaw@yahoo.com raffleslaw@hotmail.com