Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong: Negligence, Contributory Negligence & Pedestrian Rights

In Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and SBS Transit Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a negligence claim arising from a traffic accident. Khoo Bee Keong, the plaintiff, was struck by a bus driven by Ang Chun Hong, the first defendant, and owned by SBS Transit Ltd, the second defendant, at a traffic junction. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew Phang Boon Leong, found the first defendant substantially liable for the accident but also held the plaintiff contributorily negligent. The court apportioned liability 80% to the defendants and 20% to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim was for negligence, and the defendant argued contributory negligence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff on liability in the proportion of 80% to 20%.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case involving a pedestrian hit by a bus. The court found the bus driver primarily liable but also attributed contributory negligence to the pedestrian.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SBS Transit LtdDefendantCorporationLiability EstablishedLost
Khoo Bee KeongPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffPartial
Ang Chun HongDefendantIndividualLiability EstablishedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was hit by a bus driven by the first defendant at a traffic junction.
  2. The accident occurred on 8 September 2003 at approximately 9.15pm.
  3. The plaintiff claims the traffic lights were green in his favor, while the first defendant claims they were green in his favor.
  4. The plaintiff sustained severe injuries, especially to his leg.
  5. The bus's windscreen was badly shattered on the left side.
  6. The plaintiff was jogging and accompanied by two stray dogs.
  7. One of the dogs was killed in the accident.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and Another, Suit 872/2004, [2005] SGHC 128

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred at approximately 9.15pm
Suit filed (Suit 872/2004)
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the first defendant substantially to blame for the accident.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the plaintiff contributorily negligent and apportioned liability accordingly.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Weight of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court assessed the weight of evidence presented by both parties to determine the facts of the accident.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Weng Cheong v Soh Oh LooCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 336SingaporeCited regarding the duties of drivers at pedestrian crossings, but distinguished based on differing facts.
Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o RangasamyHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 628SingaporeCited for principles regarding the applicability of the Highway Code and the assessment of contributory negligence.
Ang Kuang Hoe v Chia Chor YewHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR 696SingaporeDistinguished based on the plaintiff crossing at an unmarked spot, unlike the present case.
Whitehouse v JordanHouse of LordsYes[1981] 1 WLR 246England and WalesCited for the principle that an expert has an overriding duty to objective justice and to the court.
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd v Pang Seng MengHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 162SingaporeCited regarding the duties of expert witnesses.
Leong Wing Kong v PPCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 54SingaporeCited for the principle that certificates are not imperative for expert witnesses.
Lewis v DenyeCourt of AppealYes[1939] 1 KB 540England and WalesCited for the elements required to establish the defence of contributory negligence.
Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) LdCourt of AppealYes[1949] 2 KB 291England and WalesCited for the principle that a pedestrian owes a duty to themselves to take care for their own safety.
The Ikarian ReeferEnglish High CourtYes[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 68England and WalesCited for detailed formulation of the duties of expert witnesses.
The Ikarian ReeferEnglish Court of AppealYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 455England and WalesCited for detailed formulation of the duties of expert witnesses.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Contributory Negligence and Personal Injuries Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules (Cap 276, R 24, 1990 Rev Ed)Singapore
Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Speed Limiters) Rules (Cap 276, R 39, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pedestrian crossing
  • Traffic junction
  • Contributory negligence
  • Apportionment of liability
  • Stray dogs
  • Traffic lights
  • Bus accident

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Contributory negligence
  • Pedestrian
  • Bus
  • Traffic accident
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Traffic Law
  • Personal Injury Law