Mohammad Kassim v Quah Lai Tee: Negligence & Road Accident Liability on Expressway

In a Singapore High Court case, Mohammad Kassim Bin Sapil sued Quah Lai Tee, Foo Wan Kam, and Chew Kim Teck for negligence following a road accident on the Pan Island Expressway (PIE). Kassim sustained injuries when Foo's vehicle collided with Quah's stationary lorry, after Chew's taxi skidded and collided with Foo's vehicle. The court found Chew 100% liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries, dismissing the claims against Quah and Foo. Damages are to be assessed by the Registrar.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment against the 3rd Defendant, Chew Kim Teck. Claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case where Mohammad Kassim sued Quah Lai Tee, Foo Wan Kam, and Chew Kim Teck for negligence after a road accident on the PIE.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Mohammad Kassim Bin SapilPlaintiffIndividualJudgment against 3rd DefendantPartial
Quah Lai TeeDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Foo Wan KamDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Chew Kim TeckDefendantIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Raymund AnthonyBrij Rai & RA Anthony
Ramasamy ChettiarHarry Elias Partnership
Abdul Rashid GaniKhattar Wong & Partners
Christopher FernandezKhattar Wong & Partners
Anthony WeeRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was a delivery assistant employed by Active Metal (S) Pte Ltd.
  2. On October 22, 1999, Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were in a lorry owned by Active Metal (S) Pte Ltd.
  3. The lorry stopped on the hard shoulder of the PIE due to rain to cover the load.
  4. The 2nd Defendant's vehicle collided with the rear of the stationary lorry after colliding with the 3rd Defendant's taxi.
  5. The 3rd Defendant's taxi skidded and collided with the 2nd Defendant's vehicle.
  6. Plaintiff sustained injuries after being thrown off the lorry due to the impact.
  7. The 3rd Defendant pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention under s65 Road Traffic Act.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mohammad Kassim Bin Sapil v Quah Lai Tee and Others, Suit 875/2002, [2003] SGHC 118

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred on the Pan Island Expressway
Ng Yoke Leng sent a letter to India International Insurance Pte Ltd
Ng Yoke Leng made a police report
Insurers settled Ng Yoke Leng's claim
Foo Wan Kam's Defence was filed
Foo Wan Kam's affidavit of evidence-in-chief was sworn
Ng Yoke Leng's affidavit of evidence-in-chief was signed
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the 3rd Defendant negligent in his driving, which caused the accident and the Plaintiff's injuries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to exercise due care
      • Causation
      • Contributory negligence
  2. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no break in the chain of causation between the 3rd Defendant's negligence and the Plaintiff's injuries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Chain of causation
      • Intervening act
  3. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff did not fail to take care of his own safety and was not contributorily negligent.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for injuries and consequential losses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Gim Seng v Gurdev Singh GillUnknownYes[1965-1968] SLR 623SingaporeCited for the principle that a defendant must prove a skid was without fault on their part to avoid liability for negligence.
Laurie v Raglan Building Co. LtdUnknownYes[1942] 1 KB 152England and WalesCited for the principle that a skid by itself is neutral and may or may not be due to negligence.
Richley v FaullUnknownYes[1965] 3 All ER 109England and WalesCited for the principle that an unexplained and violent skid is evidence of negligence.
Lim Ah Toh v Ang Yau Chee & AnorUnknownYes[1969] 2 MLJ 194MalaysiaCited for the principle that a driver on a slippery road must exercise an extra degree of care.
Browne v De Luxe Car ServicesUnknownYes[1941] 1 KB 549England and WalesCited for the principle that a driver who knows a road is slippery has a burden to drive with an extra degree of care.
Tan Giok Hue v Lim Swee PengUnknownYes[1960] MLJ 190MalaysiaCited in relation to the degree of care required of a motorist when conditions favouring a skid are present.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s65 Road Traffic Act (Cap. 276)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Hard shoulder
  • Skidding
  • Contributory negligence
  • Chain of causation
  • Due care and attention
  • Expressway
  • Stationary vehicle

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Road accident
  • PIE
  • Skidding
  • Causation
  • Contributory negligence
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence90
Road Traffic Act85
Personal Injury80
Automobile Accidents75
Evidence Law50
Civil Procedure40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Negligence
  • Road accident
  • Civil procedure