Linneberg v Leong: Determining Liability in Road Traffic Accident Based on Negligence

In Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding a road traffic accident. The appellant, Thorben Langvad Linneberg, sued the respondent, Leong Mei Kuen, for damages sustained in the accident. The High Court initially found the appellant 75% contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the respondent 100% liable for the accident, determining that the respondent's negligence caused the accident and the appellant's actions were reasonable in the 'agony of the moment'.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal determined the liability in a road traffic accident, finding the respondent 100% liable due to negligence. The appellant's actions were deemed reasonable in the 'agony of the moment'.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Thorben Langvad LinnebergAppellantIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Leong Mei KuenRespondentIndividualRespondent 100% liable for the accidentLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramasamy s/o Karuppan ChettiarACIES Law Corporation
Sarjeet Singh s/o Gummer SinghACIES Law Corporation
Lim Hui YingKhattarWong LLP
Patrick YeoKhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

  1. The appellant was injured in a road traffic accident involving a minibus driven by the respondent.
  2. The accident occurred on Clemenceau Avenue North, at a T-junction with Peck Hay Road.
  3. The respondent stopped her minibus on the left lane to allow a student to alight.
  4. The respondent drove the minibus from the stationary position on the left lane to the right lane.
  5. The appellant swerved his motorcycle to avoid a collision but collided with the minibus.
  6. The respondent pleaded guilty to inconsiderate driving under s 65(b) of the Road Traffic Act.
  7. The High Court initially found the appellant 75% contributorily negligent.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen, Civil Appeal No 141 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 61
  2. Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei Kuen, , [2012] SGHC 26

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Road traffic accident occurred
Respondent pleaded guilty to inconsiderate driving
Appeal allowed, holding the Respondent 100% liable for the accident

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found the Respondent negligent, leading to the Appellant's injuries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to keep a proper lookout
      • Failure to exercise reasonable care
      • Breach of duty of care
  2. Contributory Negligence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's finding of contributory negligence on the part of the Appellant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Excessive speed
      • Evasive manoeuvre
      • Failure to avoid collision
  3. Standard of Care
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal determined that the Appellant acted reasonably in the circumstances, considering the 'agony of the moment'.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable person standard
      • Duty to anticipate negligence of others
      • Agony of the moment
  4. Appellate Review of Facts
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial judge's assessment of the Appellant's credibility, finding his testimony consistent and candid.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Credibility of witnesses
      • Assessment of evidence
      • Inferences from facts

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Personal Injury

10. Practice Areas

  • Personal Injury
  • Appellate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei KuenHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 26SingaporeThe decision of the High Court which was appealed from in the present case.
Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi AbleSingapore High CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR (R) 61SingaporeCited for the principle regarding appellate intervention in relation to a witness’ credibility.
Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and anotherSingapore Court of AppealYes[2012] SGCA 32SingaporeCited for the principle regarding appellate intervention in findings of fact.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101SingaporeCited for the principle regarding appellate court's role with respect to the finding of facts made in the course of a trial.
Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew WanSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 455SingaporeCited for the principle that a driver would not be negligent in the scenario where a child had suddenly run across the road and was hit by the driver’s vehicle, if the child was in fact too close to the vehicle.
SBS Transit Ltd v Stafford Rosemary Anne Jane (administratrix of the estate of Anthony John Stafford, deceased)Singapore Court of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 211SingaporeCited for the principle that the law requires the motorist to act on the basis that there may be negligence and incompetence on the part of other road users and to make allowance for them,but without having to contemplate possibilities that are remote.
Fardon v Harcourt-RivingtonHouse of LordsYes[1932] All ER Rep 81England and WalesCited for the principle that the user of the road is not bound to guard against every conceivable eventuality, but only against such eventualities as a reasonable man ought to foresee as being within the ordinary range of human experience.
London Passenger Transport Board v Upson and AnotherHouse of LordsYes[1949] AC 155England and WalesCited for the principle that negligence is not common and neither common sense nor experience would have taught the Appellant that the Respondent was likely to act in the way she did.
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun HongSingapore High CourtYes[2005] SGHC 128SingaporeCited for the principle that expert evidence will not always assist the court.
Rehill v Rider Holdings LimitedEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 628England and WalesCited for the principle that the only way a practitioner can reduce the litigation risk to his/ her client is by obtaining evidence which establishes the facts.
State v BallietteSupreme Court of WisconsinYes2011 WI 79United StatesCited for the principle that the presence of ABS would result in an absence of brake marks.
State v KinneyCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District, Madison CountyYes1999 Ohio App LEXIS 4154United StatesCited for the principle that Iezzi’s act of braking without going to full lock-up (as evidenced by the absence of skid marks from Iezzi’s car) most likely resulted in speed loss.
Smith v. MylesCourt of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth CircuitYes580 So 2d 1088United StatesCited for the principle that there can be braking without skid marks -- the absence only indicates that the wheels did not lock.
R v CookEnglish Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)Yes[2004] EWCA Crim 1177England and WalesCited for the principle that the absence of skid marks was due to the vehicle being fitted with an ABS braking system.
Whiteford v Kubas UAB (A Company)English Court of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 1017England and WalesCited for the principle that the lorry driver’s duty was to take reasonable care and that the court must avoid the danger of evaluating the standard of care “by reference to fine considerations elicited in the leisure of the court room, possibly with the liberal use of hind-sight”
Public Prosecutor v Tubbs Julia ElizabethSingapore High CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 716SingaporeCited for the principle that in the legal post-mortem that follows the facts, one should not miss the wood for the trees.
Greene v SookdeoPrivy CouncilYes[2009] UKPC 31United KingdomCited for the principle that all that is necessary in such a circumstance is that the conduct should not have been unreasonable, taking the exigencies of the particular situation into account.
The Bywell CastleNot AvailableYes(1879) 4 PD 219England and WalesCited for the principle that a ship has no right, by its own misconduct, to put another ship into a situation of extreme peril, and then charge that other ship with misconduct.
The Crown (“Adolph Woermann”) v “Hessa”English High CourtYes(1921) 9 Ll L Rep 271England and WalesCited for the principle that when a man by the fault of another is presented with a choice between two perilous courses, the comparative perils must not be too nicely weighed, nor must the choice be held a wrong one if the course chosen does not attain its object.
Stuart v WalshCourt of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South WalesYes[2012] NSWCA 186AustraliaCited for the principle of acting in the “agony of the moment”.
Govinda Raju v LawsMalaysian High CourtYes[1966] MLJ 188MalaysiaCited for the principle that what is done or omitted to be done in the agony of the moment cannot fairly be treated as negligence.
Yeoh Cheng Han v Official Administrator, MalayaMalaysian Federal CourtYes[1972] 2 MLJ 7MalaysiaCited for the principle that in the agony of the moment in an attempt to save himself from the peril in which he was placed by the wrong action of the deceased, he swerved to the right in an endeavour to avoid the scooter, so that he cannot be said to have been guilty even of contributory negligence.
Len Omnibus Company Bhd v North South Transport Sdn Bhd & anorMalaysian Federal CourtYes[1978] 2 MLJ 246MalaysiaCited for the principle that the lorry had put the bus into a situation of extreme peril and it is idle to say that if the bus driver had acted rashly in the agony of the moment he was guilty of contributory negligence.
Ong Chan Tow v ReginaSingapore High CourtYes[1963] MLJ 160SingaporeCited for the principle that in the agony of the moment, to what appeared to be the less destructive of the two alternatives.
Tay Koh Yat Bus Co Ltd v Chua Chong Cher and othersPrivy CouncilYes[1971-1973] SLR(R) 354SingaporeCited for the principle that he was confronted with a sudden emergency, and in what has sometimes been called “the agony of the moment” he swerved to the offside in order to avoid running down the motorcyclist and probably injuring him fatally or very seriously.
Wee Soon Hian v Lai Ching MowSingapore High CourtYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 173SingaporeCited for the principle that the avoiding action taken by him was one which any reasonable user of the road, like himself, confronted with the same situation , ie a head-on collision through no fault of his own, could well have adopted on emerging out of this particular bend short of having to commit virtual suicide.
Foo Siang Him v Attorney-GeneralSingapore High CourtYes[1983-1984] SLR(R) 586SingaporeCited for the principle that his attempt to stop by braking to avoid the collision was an act of evasion that was a decision made in the agony of the moment and was reasonable in all the circumstances.
See Soon Soon v Goh Yong Kwang and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 535SingaporeCited for the principle that a person who has acted in the agony of the moment should not be wholly blamed for the consequences of his act to save someone else or himself from injury.
Chu Kim Sing v Abdul Razak bin AminMalaysian High CourtYes[1999] 6 MLJ 433MalaysiaCited for the principle that Govinda Raju as “the classical case”.
KR Taxi Service Ltd v ZaharahNot AvailableYes[1969] 1 MLJ 49MalaysiaCited for the principle that the bus driver was not expected to behave like a superman.
Lim Kor Bee v Abdul Latif bin IsmailNot AvailableYes[1978] 1 MLJ 109MalaysiaCited for the principle that a driver of a motor car travelling along a main highway is under no duty to be on the look-out for anybody suddenly darting out into the road in a negligent and irresponsible manner.
US Shipping Board v Laird Line LtdNot AvailableYes[1924] AC 286United KingdomCited for the principle that it is not in the mouth of those who have created the danger of the situation to be minutely critical of what is done by those whom they have by their fault involved in the danger.
Wormell v HagenBritish Columbia Supreme CourtYes[2009] BCJ No 1717CanadaCited for the principle of the concept of the “agony of the moment”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2005 Rev Ed) s 65(b)Singapore
Highway Code (Cap 276, R 11, 1990 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Road traffic accident
  • Contributory negligence
  • Evasive manoeuvre
  • Standard of care
  • Agony of the moment
  • Appellate intervention
  • Credibility of witness
  • Inconsiderate driving
  • Excessive speed
  • Brake marks
  • Blind spot

15.2 Keywords

  • Road accident
  • Negligence
  • Appeal
  • Motorcycle
  • Minibus
  • Contributory negligence
  • Singapore
  • Traffic law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Road Traffic Act95
Automobile Accidents90
Contributory negligence90
Personal Injury85
Negligence70
Causation60
Vicarious liability50
Damages40
Evidence Law30
Contract Law10

16. Subjects

  • Tort
  • Negligence
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Appeals